Opinion ID: 1948428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the circuit court err in refusing to allow the plaintiff to call the defendant as a witness upon the hearing of the motion for summary judgment?

Text: Rule 43(e) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure states: When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. Appellant argues he should have been allowed to question Dr. Wiggins because the oral testimony would have been of significant assistance to the court, and it was the only opportunity that he had to examine the appellee. The appellee answers that the affidavits speak directly and clearly and that the appellant was simply trying to avoid the requirements necessary to even make out a basis for his claim. Trial judges are cautioned, however, in permitting a defendant to submit an affidavit defending himself, but denying a plaintiff the opportunity for cross-examination  at least before granting summary judgment. A plaintiff may be able to make his case on cross-examination either in deposition or at trial. Therefore, the Court holds that the appellant should have been allowed to examine the defendant as a witness at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. [2]