Opinion ID: 1924492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jury instructions d-8 and d-10

Text: ¶ 5. Rials argues that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the law of contributory negligence. Specifically, Rials suggests that by granting instructions D-8 and D-10, the trial court indicated to the jury that any negligence by Maggio was the sole proximate cause of the accident as opposed to a contributing cause. ¶ 6. Instruction D-8 provides as follows: The Court instructs the jury that the operator of a motor vehicle has a duty to keep the vehicle under proper control and to drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent under existing circumstances. Therefore, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that: 1. Bryan Maggio was not driving at a reasonable rate of speed in view of the conditions existing on November 25, 1998, and/or did not maintain proper control of his vehicle under the circumstances as they existed on November 25, 1998, and 2. That such failure by Bryan Maggio was the sole proximate cause of the accident of November 25, 1998, then your verdict shall be for the Defendants in this cause. ¶ 7. Instruction D-10 provides that: The Court instructs the jury that violations of traffic laws in safety statutes may constitute negligence as a matter of law. Therefore if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that: 1. Bryan Maggio, while operating his motor vehicle on November 25, 1998, failed to comply with the rules of the road by attempting to pass or overtake the vehicle [sic] a vehicle when he did not have clear visibility of the left lane ahead and when said left lane was not free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance, and 2. That said failure on the part of Bryan Maggio to comply with this traffic regulation was the sole proximate cause of the accident of November 25, 1998, then your verdict shall be for the Defendants in this cause. ¶ 8. Rials claims that these two instructions are confusing and they fail to instruct the jury that they are entitled to find that the negligent acts of Maggio, if any, may have been a contributing or concurring proximate cause of the deaths of Mrs. Bond and her daughter ... along with any negligent acts of Willis and Duckworth.... ¶ 9. Duckworth and Johnson argue that instructions D-8 and D-10 properly reflect the applicable law. They further argue that the two instructions, when read in conjunction with the other instructions, fairly and adequately instructed the jury on every theory of negligence applicable to the case. Duckworth and Johnson specifically note that both D-8 and D-10 instruct the jurors that if the jury found Maggio was negligent and that Maggio's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, then their verdict must be for the [remaining] defendants. ¶ 10. Sanderson Farms and Willis argue that instructions D-8 and D-10 were clear, unambiguous instructions that accurately stated the law while presenting the defendants' theory of the defense. They also join Duckworth and Johnson's argument that the jury instructions as a whole properly instructed the jury. ¶ 11. On appeal, individual jury instructions should not be considered in isolation, but should be considered as a whole. See, e.g., Reese v. Summers, 792 So.2d 992, 994 (Miss.2001) (citing Fielder v. Magnolia Beverage Co., 757 So.2d 925, 929 (Miss.1999)). See also Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Cermack, 658 So.2d 1352, 1356 (Miss.1995) (On appeal, this Court does not review jury instructions in isolation, rather, they are read as a whole to determine if the jury was properly instructed.). ¶ 12. In the case sub judice, instructions D-8 and D-10 are not confusing when read in isolation, let alone when read collectively. Both instructions clearly and properly instruct the jury. This is bolstered by the jury verdict form which plainly indicates that the jury determined that defendant Maggio was 100 percent responsible for the accident. Accordingly, this claim is without merit.