Opinion ID: 1104762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Negligence of Watson Quality

Text: ¶ 14. It is elementary that [t]he elements of proof required to support a claim for damages for negligence are a duty, a breach of that duty, damages, and proximate cause. Rolison v. City of Meridian, 691 So.2d 440, 444 (Miss.1997) (citations omitted). Casanova's claim of negligence fails not because he failed to offer proof of negligence, but rather because he presented no evidence of causation. Even assuming, as we must for summary-judgment purposes, that Casanova took the van to Watson Quality several times for repairs and that Watson regularly failed to make repairs, he nevertheless has failed to connect in any way that alleged negligence to the wreck. His testimony of a pop and a resulting inability to steer is unconnected by any evidence to Watson's alleged negligent repair. Casanova's claim for negligence against Watson fails.