Opinion ID: 1839315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the lower court erred in granting plaintiff's instructions p-9 and p-10.

Text: The Instructions P-9 and P-10 follow: Instruction P-9 The Court instructs the Jury that if you should find from the preponderance of the evidence, if any, that Defendant James Rucker was guilty of negligence and further find that the said James Rucker was acting within the scope of his authority as the agent and representative of Defendants, Udell Stubbs Trucking Company and Magna Corporation (formerly Mississippi Steel Company), then the Defendants, Udell Stubbs Trucking Company and Magna Corporation (formerly Mississippi Steel Company) are liable for the negligence, if any, of the said Defendant, James Rucker; and the Court further instructs you that the said Defendant James Rucker is also liable for his own negligence, if any, as shown by the preponderance of the evidence of the case, if any, and if you believe by the preponderance of the evidence in this case that the negligence of James Rucker, if any, proximately caused or contributed to the death of Charles Edward Hopkins, then it is your sworn duty to find for the Plaintiff against all Defendants. Instruction P-10 The Court instructs the Jury that if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that Udell Stubbs Trucking Company and Magna Corporation (formerly Mississippi Steel Company), through its agents, servants and employees, were negligent so that such negligence, if any, proximately caused or proximately contributed to the death of Charles Edward Hopkins, then you may return a verdict for the Plaintiff against the Defendants, Udell Stubbs Trucking Company, Magna Corporation (formerly Mississippi Steel Company) and their agent, James Rucker. It is obvious from a perusal of the instructions P-9 and P-10 that there is no indication in what manner the defendants were negligent. The jury was left to grope with, and surmise, what the negligence referred to consisted of. Such instructions have been condemned time and time again. Even instructions that tell the jury, if they believe the defendant is guilty of negligence as charged in the declaration are not proper and constitute reversible error. Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Cornelius, 131 Miss. 37, 47-48, 95 So. 90, 92 (1923). See also Southland Broadcasting Co. v. Tracy, 210 Miss. 836, 847-849, 50 So.2d 572, 576-577 (1951); Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Linwood Elevator, 241 Miss. 400, 425, 130 So.2d 262, 271 (1961); and Merchants Co. v. Hutchinson, 186 So.2d 760, 763-764 (Miss. 1966). Also, see Meridian City Lines v. Baker, 206 Miss. 58, 39 So.2d 541 (1949); Rawlings v. Royals, 214 Miss. 335, 58 So.2d 820 (1952); New Orleans & N.E.R. Co. v. Miles, 197 Miss. 846, 20 So.2d 657 (1945); Town of Fulton v. Mize, 274 So.2d 129 (Miss. 1973). The instructions constitute reversible error and are not cured by any other instruction or by reading all instructions together. In view of the fact that this case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial, we do not find it necessary to discuss the remaining assigned errors, since they probably will not reoccur on the next trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WALKER, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. ANDERSON, J., not participating.