Opinion ID: 1812500
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the trial court err in granting conflicting instructions?

Text: At the request of plaintiff, the court granted Instructions Nos. 2 and 7 as follows: INSTRUCTION 2 The Court instructs the Jury that if you find from a preponderance of the credible evidence that Richard Gilbert was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, and which negligence, if any, proximately caused or contributed to the accident which resulted in the death of Janice Faye Magee, then you should return a verdict for the Plaintiff and assess damages against the Defendant accordingly up to the policy limits of $10,000.00.       INSTRUCTION 7 The Court instructs the Jury that if you find from a preponderance of the credible evidence that the uninsured motorist failed to keep a proper lookout[,] failed to have his vehicle under proper control or was speeding at the time of the accident complained of herein, then said uninsured motorist was negligent, and if you further find that said negligence proximately caused or contributed to the accident which resulted in the death of Janice Faye Magee, then you should return a verdict for the Plaintiff. At the request of defendant, the court granted Instruction No. 17: The Court instructs the jury that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in this case to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Gilbert Richard was an uninsured motorist at the time of the accident in question, that the said Gilbert Richard was guilty of negligence which proximately resulted in the accident in question, that the policy of insurance with the defendant was in full force and effect at the time of the accident, and that the plaintiff has suffered damages from this accident, and should you believe that the plaintiff has failed to sustain this burden of proof, then it will be your sworn duty to return a verdict for the defendant. Appellant contends that in Instructions Nos. 2 and 7, use of the language proximately caused or contributed to the accident conflicted with Instruction D-17 which used the language proximately resulted in the accident in question, . . It further argues that in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wightwick, 320 So.2d 373 (Miss. 1975), this Court held a collision must be the proximate cause of negligence on the uninsured motorist's part. The appellant here apparently argues that there is a different rule for the application of negligence in an uninsured motorist cause and the ordinary automobile accident case. It relies upon Wightwick for that position. Although Wightwick stated that a plaintiff must show the collision was the proximate result of negligence on the part of the uninsured, it did not enunciate a new rule. Proximate cause leads to a proximate result. Proximate cause includes proximate contributing cause and the latter extends to proximate contributing result. We make no distinction in proximate cause or proximate contributing cause and proximate result or proximate contributing result. There is no merit in this assignment. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.