Opinion ID: 1631067
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Jury Instruction C-19 (special interrogatory)

Text: ś 111. Carla contends that the trial court erred by giving jury instruction C-19, which was a special interrogatory verdict form. She contends that the instruction finds that R & R and Hunter were negligent for violating the FMCSRs only to require the jury to find that the failure was the proximate cause. She contends that this standard is impossible because the trial court refused to allow evidence that the violations were the cause of Preston's death. ś 112. The special interrogatory is within the trial court's discretion pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 49. See also Missala Marine Servs., Inc. v. Odom, 861 So.2d 290, 296 (Miss.2003) (citing W.J. Runyon & Son, Inc. v. Davis, 605 So.2d 38, 49 (Miss. 1992), overruled on other grounds) (the decision to instruct the jury by means of a special verdict or a general verdict with interrogatories is within the discretion of the trial court and will be overturned only on a showing that the lower court abused its discretion). ś 113. Jury instruction C-19 stated in part: In returning your verdict consistent with the instructions of law given to you by this Court, you should answer the following questions, each answer being based upon a preponderance of the evidence and agreed to you by nine or members (sic) of the Jury. QUESTION NO. 1: The Court has instructed you that the Defendants, Running & Rolling Trucking, Inc., and Anthony Q. Hunter were negligent in failing to comply with the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Do you find that that such negligence was a proximate cause and/or proximate contributing cause of the death of the deceased Preston Jimmy Utz? CHECK ANSWER: ______ Yes ______ No If you answer No to Question 1, please advise the Bailiff that you have reached a verdict. If you answer yes to the above question, please answer QUESTION 2. The jury answered No to the question. Carla's argument that the instruction was incorrect, a misstatement of law, and misleading to the jury is without merit. ś 114. This Court previously addressed the issue of negligence. Even though negligence was established by R & R and Hunter for failure to comply with the FMCSRs, Mississippi law still required that the negligence was the proximate cause and/or proximate contributing cause of the injury, Preston's death, in order to recover. Thomas, 667 So.2d at 596-97 (citing Bryant v. Alpha Entm't Corp., 508 So.2d 1094, 1096 (Miss.1987)). This portion of the instruction is also in keeping with jury instructions C-4 on the definition of negligence, C-10 on proximate cause, and very closely mirrors C-13 on R & R's and hunter's negligence in failing to comply with the FMCSRs and whether that failure was the proximate and/or proximate contributing cause of Preston's death. As for Carla's assertion that it is impossible to show the standard that the negligence on the part of R & R and Hunter proximately caused the injury because the trial court refused to allow evidence that the violations were the cause of Preston's death, these concerns otherwise have been addressed in previous issues and are without merit.