Opinion ID: 1735195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the trial court erred in granting instructions d-13 and d-14.

Text: ¶ 31. The Fielders next complain that the trial court improperly granted defense instructions D-13 and D-14, because the Instructions are in error and part of it is because of the erroneous trial of the cases together when different law applied as to each plaintiff. Immediately above it was found that the cases were properly consolidated under the liberal standard afforded M.R.C.P. 42(a), so this contention is now settled. ¶ 32. Instruction D-13 stated: You are instructed that it is the duty of the Plaintiff, Lanice Fielder, to drive her 1984 Chevrolet C-10 pickup at a reasonable rate of speed under the circumstances then confronting her. It was also her duty to keep a reasonable lookout to the front and side of her moving vehicle to keep it under reasonable and easy control, and to anticipate and expect the presence of other vehicles which were also using the highway at the same time. You are further instructed that if you find from the evidence that the Plaintiff, Lanice Fielder, violated any of the described duties and that such acts, if any, on her part were the sole proximate cause of the accident and any injuries sustained by her, it is your duty to return a verdict in favor of the Defendant. ¶ 33. Instruction D-14 read: You are instructed that it was the duty of the Plaintiff, Lanice Fielder, to drive her vehicle at a rate of speed which was not greater than the lawful speed limit and to reduce such speed when approaching and going around a curve, and to maintain reasonable control of her automobile; and her failure, if any, to discharge such duties is negligence. Accordingly, if you believe from the evidence that Lanice Fielder failed to reduce the speed of her automobile on approaching and going around a curve, or if you believe from the evidence that she was traveling at a rate of speed greater than the lawful speed limit, and in the exercise of reasonable care she should have reduced her speed while going around the curve while traveling on a wet highway, or she failed to maintain reasonable control of her pickup, then she was guilty of negligence: and if you further believe that such negligence, if any, was the sole proximate cause of the accident, then it is your sworn duty to find in favor of the Defendant, Magnolia Beverage Company, Inc. ¶ 34. When asked to state his objection to D-13 by the trial court, the Fielder's counsel replied: In the second sentence it says under easy control which is the Mississippi Supreme Court has condemned the giving of that type of instruction. It is the duty of a driver to keep his vehicle under easy control and, therefore, we object to it on that ground. Also, it just says under the circumstances then confronting her in the first sentence we contend that the rate of speed and the reasonable rate of speed under the conditions then confronting her is not the word that should be used. (sic) ¶ 35. Although the Fielders do not refer this Court to any specific case, the quote above by the Fielders' counsel is apparently in reference to those cases where this Court has held that instructions which require vigilance on the part of a driver have been condemned as requiring more than the exercise of reasonable care on the part of a motorist. See Turner v. Turner, 524 So.2d 942, 947 (Miss.1988) (holding an instruction erroneous because it placed a higher burden on the driver Turner than that of reasonable care); Crossley v. James, 365 So.2d 957 (Miss.1978) (holding that it was reversible error to grant an instruction which places upon defendant the burden of avoiding a collision); Jones v. Phillips, 263 So.2d 759, 762-63 (Miss. 1972) (avoid the collision and vigilant lookout instructions were erroneous, because both instructions, considered together, placed a higher duty upon defendant than the law requires); but see Miles v. Duckworth, 481 So.2d 757, 758 (Miss.1985) (upheld an instruction that stated that if defendant failed to keep a reasonable and proper lookout for other traffic and vehicles; or if he failed to have his vehicle under reasonable and proper control .... then such action or actions, if any, ... constitutes negligence). ¶ 36. MBC argues that no such burden or duty was placed upon Lanice Fielder by instruction D-13. As evidence thereof, MBC contends that instruction D-13 is virtually identical to an instruction approved by this Court in a recent case. Church v. Massey, 697 So.2d 407, 412 (Miss.1997). There, the instruction at issue read: You are instructed that it was the duty of the Plaintiff, Gary W. Church to drive his motorcycle at a reasonable rate of speed under the circumstances then confronting him. It was also his duty to keep a reasonable lookout to the front and sides of his moving motorcycle to keep it under reasonable and easy control and anticipate and expect the presence of other vehicles which were also using 8th Street at the same time. Id. Likewise, this Court approves instruction D-13, because upon comparison the two are in fact virtually identical. ¶ 37. In regards to instruction D-14, the Fielders offer this Court no argument other than their objection made at trial. At trial, the Fielders objected on grounds that [i]t's not every curve in this road that a person is required to reduce the speed. The trial court overruled the objection. MBC contends that the trial court properly gave instruction D-14, because Miss.Code Ann. § 63-3-505 states, in pertinent part, that [t]he driver or operator of any motor vehicle must decrease speed when ... approaching and going around a curve. Miss.Code Ann. § 63-3-505 (1996). ¶ 38. In Vise v. Vise, 363 So.2d 548 (Miss.1978), this Court approved an instruction requiring the driver of a motor vehicle to decrease speed when approaching and going around a curve. Id. at 551. Therefore, according to statutory mandate and case precedent, we hold that the trial court properly granted instruction D-14. Read as a whole and in context, instructions D-13 and D-14 fairly announce the law and create no injustice; thus, no reversible error is found.