Opinion ID: 1846461
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Apportionment between Coho and Cockrell.

Text: ¶ 71. Coho and Cockrell object to instructions P-15 and S-P-14 because the instructions did not allow the jury to apportion fault between the defendants, or consider the fault, if any, of other persons or entities. Coho and Cockrell claim that instruction D-23, which was refused, would have correctly allowed the jury to apportion fault. They quote Miss.Code Ann. § 85-5-7(7)(1999) as follows: In actions involving joint tort-feasors, the trier of fact shall determine the percentage of fault for each party alleged to be at fault. However, they fail to cite any authority that states that a jury instruction, so deficient, is reversible error. ¶ 72. The Stroos correctly respond that the statute does not permit apportionment of liability between an employer and employee, because they shall be considered one (1) defendant when the liability has been caused by the employee. Miss.Code Ann. § 85-5-7(3)(1999). The Stroos further argue that even though it is true that instruction P-15 did not contain a sufficient form for the defendants, instruction D-9 sufficiently instructed the jury as to the form, if the jury found in their favor. Thus, taking P-15 and D-9 together, the jury had ample opportunity to find for the defendants if it was so inclined. After a close examination of the jury instructions at issue, we agree.