Opinion ID: 1735195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the combined negligence of both the plaintiffs and the defendant must total 100%.

Text: ¶ 25. Section 85-5-7 allows for determination of percentage of fault in a civil case. Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin, 725 So.2d 721, 743 (Miss.1998) (Smith, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The instructions given (D-23 and D-25) combined instructions on the apportionment of fault between joint tortfeasors as to Bobbie's injuries with instructions on determining Lanice's contributory negligence for her own injuries. By so doing the jury was expressly instructed to reduce Bobbie's recoverable damages by the percentage of Lanice's contributory negligence. ¶ 26. Bobbie's damages and right to recover from MBC should have been handled in instructions separate from Lanice's. As to Bobbie the jury should have been instructed to determine (1) Bobbie's damages; and (2) the apportionment of fault between Lanice and MBC. As to Lanice the jury should have been instructed to determine (1) Lanice's damages; and (2) Lanice's contributory negligence, if any. ¶ 27. The instruction offered by the plaintiffs for determining whether MBC's negligence in any way caused Bobbie's injuries satisfied § 85-5-7. The instruction merely stated that the jury should find that Bobbie was entitled to recover from MBC if it found that MBC's negligence in any way caused her injuries. The instruction did not provide that MBC was responsible for all of Bobbie's recoverable damages. And any apportionment of fault between MBC and Lanice, as joint tortfeasors towards Bobbie, could have been handled in a separate jury instruction. ¶ 28. Nevertheless, this error was also harmless, as the jury obviously found no fault on the part of MBC. The form of the verdict handed down indicated that the jury found Lanice Fielder to be totally at fault. ¶ 29. Under this issue heading, the Fielders also mention in passing that the trial court erred in consolidating these two cases. [1] Specifically, the Fielders state, Plaintiff contends that the Instructions were correct and otherwise it was gross error to combine the cases for trial over objection of the appellants. The record indicates that MBC moved to consolidate the two cases on March 20, 1996. On March 27, 1996, Plaintiffs objected to consolidation. By order dated October 14, 1996, the actions of Lanice Fielder and Bobbie Fielder were consolidated by the trial court pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure (M.R.C.P.) 42(a). Although the transcripts of the motion hearing on consolidation were not included in the record, it is clear from the order that the trial court relied upon Rule 42(a) and found that the cases should be consolidated to avoid unnecessary costs or delay as both cases involve a common questions of law and fact. ¶ 30. This Court stated in Vicksburg Chem. Co. v. Thornell, 355 So.2d 299, 300 (Miss.1978), as follows: The rule established in this jurisdiction is whether a consolidation should be ordered is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and consolidation of actions in proper cases serves many sound purposes and should be liberally construed. The object is to avoid a multiplicity of suits, to prevent delay, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court and to save numerous costs and expenses. See Stoner v. Colvin, 236 Miss. 736, 110 So.2d 920 (1959); Gwin v. Fountain, 159 Miss. 619, 126 So. 18 (1930); Planters' Oil Mill v. Yazoo and M.V.R. Co., 153 Miss. 712, 121 So. 138 (1929). Therefore, applying this liberal standard, the trial judge was easily within the discretion afforded him when he consolidated these two cases which arose from the same accident. The Fielders' complaint of error about consolidation is thus without merit.
¶ 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.
¶ 39. As the trial court was preparing jury instructions, the Fielders raised a charge of misconduct against the jury bailiff, Albert Chisolm. The Fielders contend on appeal, as they did at trial, that the bailiff made prejudicial remarks to the jury justifying the trial judge declaring a mistrial. The Fielders argue that they heard the bailiff tell the jury that the case was being delayed by Fielders' counsel. Further, upon hearing this statement, the jury erupted into laughter. The Fielders argue that a mistrial should have been granted under Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice Rule (UCCCR) 3.12. ¶ 40. The record indicates that the trial judge heard testimony outside the presence of the jury from Lanice Fielder, Steven Fielder, Bobbie Fielder, and Albert Chisolm regarding exactly what was said. According to the bailiff, he advised the jury that he was going to determine how much longer their wait would be when one of the jurors indicated that the delay was the fault of the Fielders' counsel. Moreover, the bailiff refuted making any derogatory statements regarding counsel. The Fielders moved for a mistrial, and in denying that motion, the trial court noted that it would have impossible for the Fielders to have seen into the jury room from where they were seated. Thus, the Fielders could not have seen who actually made the statements. The trial judge also noted the bailiffs impeccable service record. ¶ 41. UCCCR 3.12 states: Upon motion of any party, the court may declare a mistrial if there occurs during the trial, either inside or outside the courtroom, misconduct by the party, the party's attorneys, or someone acting at the behest of the party or the party's attorney, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the movant's case. Upon motion of a party or its own motion, the court may declare a mistrial if: 1. The trial cannot proceed in conformity with law; or 2. It appears there is no reasonable probability of the jury's agreement upon a verdict. In DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp., 601 So.2d 818, 820 (Miss.1992), this Court said: In civil cases, this Court leaves the grant or denial of a mistrial or new trial founded upon juror misconduct to the sound discretion of the trial court. Atwood v. Lever, 274 So.2d 146, 147 (Miss. 1973). A mistrial or a new trial should not be granted on this ground in a civil case, unless the circumstances indicate some prejudice, wrongful intent, or unfairness. Id.; see also Middleton v. Evers, 515 So.2d 940 (Miss.1987); Great American Surplus Lines Ins. v. Dawson, 468 So.2d 87 (Miss.1985). Furthermore, Mississippi law presumes that jurors follow the trial judge's instructions, as upon their oaths they are obliged to do. Downtown Grill, Inc. v. Connell, 721 So.2d 1113, 1118 (Miss.1998); Parker v. Jones County Community Hosp., 549 So.2d 443, 446 (Miss.1989). ¶ 42. The Fielders have neither shown to this Court any abuse of discretion by the trial judge, nor any case law supporting their position. In fact, this Court has previously been reluctant to grant a mistrial for misconduct based upon a bailiffs actions absent testimony from jurors regarding misconduct. See Middleton v. Evers, 515 So.2d 940 (Miss.1987). As stated above, the Fielders could not see into the jury room at the time of the alleged derogatory comment to know for sure who said it, and at best, they overheard what they thought was the bailiff's voice. Further, the bailiff specifically denies having said any such statement. Thus, this Court cannot find any prejudice or unfairness justifying a finding of an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The Fielders' assignment of error is without merit.
¶ 43. The Fielders' final assertion of error is that the trial court improperly permitted the testimony of Dick Turner, MBC's accident reconstruction and investigation expert. The Fielders allege that Dick Turner was not qualified as an expert witness, and alternatively, that his testimony should not have been permitted in the way and manner it was presented to the Court and Jury. ¶ 44. The Mississippi Rules of Evidence (MRE) permit expert testimony if specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. M.R.E. 702. An individual may be qualified as an expert in a particular field based upon his knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. Id. The sufficiency of foundational facts or evidence on which to base an opinion is a question of law. Materials Transportation Co. v. Newman, 656 So.2d 1199, 1203-04 (Miss.1995); Gulf Ins. Co. v. Provine, 321 So.2d 311, 314 (Miss.1975). These facts must afford a reasonably accurate basis for the expert's conclusion. Gulf Ins. Co., 321 So.2d at 314. Expert testimony must be consistent with scientific principles as established by the laws of physics or mechanics. Id. The scientific principles underlying an expert's opinion must be generally accepted by practitioners in the expert's field. May v. State, 524 So.2d 957, 963 (Miss.1988); M.R.E. 702, Comment. ¶ 45. Here, MBC submits that Dick Turner was eminently qualified as an accident reconstruction expert. The record reveals that beyond his undergraduate at Syracuse University and police training at the Dallas Sheriff's Academy, Turner testified to specialized training and education at the University of Texas at Austin, the Society of Automatic Engineers for accident reconstruction, and the Institute of Police Technology and Management in Jacksonville, Florida. Turner stated that he had previously been qualified to testify as to accident reconstruction in forty-seven states including Mississippi. Additionally, Turner was a professional race car driver and later test drove vehicles for Ford, Chrysler, GM, Mazda, Honda, Audi, BMW, and Porsche. ¶ 46. This Court has permitted the testimony of qualified accident reconstruction experts to give opinions on how an accident happened, the point of impact, the angle of travel, the responsibility of the parties involved, and the interpretation of photographs. Miller v. Stiglet, Inc., 523 So.2d 55 (Miss.1988); Hollingsworth v. Bovaird Supply Co., 465 So.2d 311 (Miss. 1985). However, in Poirrier v. Degrande, 604 So.2d 268 (Miss.1992), this Court found reversible error where the trial court had allowed the expert testimony of Barber, an alleged accident reconstructionist. Id. at 270. This Court based its reversal however only on the fact that the expert did not have the training or the experience to qualify pursuant to MRE 702, Miller and Hollingsworth. Id. ¶ 47. This Court compared the expert in Poirrier to ones in Miller and Hollingsworth, as follows: [B]oth experts in Miller and Hollingsworth graduated from the Traffic Institute Accident Investigation School of Northwestern University. In Miller, the expert witness also had fourteen years experience as a police officer, during twelve of which he worked accidents, investigating between four hundred and six hundred accidents. Miller, 523 So.2d at 57. In Hollingsworth, the expert witness had vast experience in police department investigating and reconstructing traffic accidents, experience gained at Ford, General Motors and Chrysler Proving Grounds, and in teaching traffic accident reconstruction in approximately thirty-five states. Hollingsworth, 465 So.2d at 313.... While Barber could qualify as an expert to automobile damage and repair and as to cost of repair, Barber does not meet the qualifications regarding accident reconstruction pursuant to Miller and Hollingsworth. 604 So.2d at 270. ¶ 48. Employing a similar comparison in the case sub judice, Turner definitely falls into the category of highly educated and trained accident reconstruction experts previously approved in Miller and Hollingsworth. Thus, the trial court properly exercised sound discretion in allowing the expert testimony of Turner as to accident reconstruction.