Opinion ID: 1830645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the verdict of the jury was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, evidencing bias and prejudice?

Text: ¶ 36. A trial judge's findings of fact on conflicting evidence cannot be disturbed by this Court on appeal unless we can say with reasonable certainty that these findings were manifestly wrong and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Richardson v. Riley, 355 So.2d 667, 668 (Miss.1978). See also Puckett v. Stuckey, 633 So.2d 978, 982 (Miss.1993). The reviewing court must examine the entire record and must accept, that evidence which supports or reasonably tends to support the findings of fact made below, together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom and which favor the lower court's findings of fact. Cotton v. McConnell, 435 So.2d 683, 685 (Miss.1983) ( quoting Culbreath v. Johnson, 427 So.2d 705, 707-708 (Miss.1983)). That there may be other evidence to the contrary is irrelevant. ¶ 37. The jury heard undisputed testimony that Hardy was an invitee on the premises of Kmart. The jury further heard testimony from Hardy that the two photographs accurately depicted the end-cap in question. Reuter testified that assuming the end-cap in the two photographs was the end-cap in question, then he would find that end-cap to be unsafe. Based on this testimony, the jury could reasonably infer that because of the unsafe display a paint can fell from it, landed next to the display and caused paint to spill. The testimony of Hardy, his brother, Reuter and Duprey all support the inference that the paint can on the floor came from the end-cap only a foot away. It was unrebutted that Hardy's fall directly contributed to his injuries. Therefore, it was only logical for a jury to find that Kmart's failure to safely construct the display caused the paint can to fall to the ground and spill paint causing Hardy to fall. ¶ 38. Having examined all of the evidence in the light most favorable to Hardy and accepting all favorable credible evidence tending to support his case and all favorable inferences drawn therefrom as true, we conclude that a reasonable fair-minded jury could reach a verdict in favor of Hardy. Therefore, we find this assignment of error to be meritless.