Opinion ID: 1631067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instructions P-18 and P-19 (yielding)

Text: ś 92. Carla next argued that the trial court erred by refusing jury instructions P-18 and P-19, as they established some of her theories of liability. Both instructions concerned yielding the right-of-way. Jury instruction P-18 stated in part that an operator of a vehicle about to enter or cross a street from a road or driveway is under a duty to yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the street so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Jury instruction P-19 stated in part that a driver must yield the right of way to another vehicle that has already established control of the driving lane. [10] The trial court refused both instructions because of insufficient evidence. ś 93. The record revealed that Hunter came to work at approximately 10:30. When he left the R & R lot located in Merigold, Mississippi, in the tractor-trailer, he drove south on Highway 61. When Hunter entered the highway, he probably tipped the left-hand lane, however he immediately got into the right-hand lane. The accident occurred approximately two or two and one-half miles after Hunter entered Highway 61. ś 94. With regard to P-18, Carla relies on Reese v. Summers, 792 So.2d 992 (Miss. 2001) (citing Thomas, 667 So.2d at 596) to support her position that whether a particular circumstance rises to the level of an emergency or unusual situation is a question for the jury. However, the trial court did not err by refusing these instructions. The record contains no evidence to show that Hunter or Preston were in close proximity to each other at an intersection when Hunter entered Highway 61. The accident occurred two and one-half miles after Hunter had entered the highway from the R & R lot and had been traveling in the right hand lane. This Court has held that a trial court has considerable discretion when instructing the jury. Bickham, 861 So.2d at 301. A jury instruction may be refused by a trial court when it is unsupported by the evidence. Cato, 15 So.3d at 423. Based on the evidence provided, this Court cannot say that the trial court erred by refusing these instructions.