Opinion ID: 1737864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in upholding the jury's assessment of contributory negligence?

Text: Under this assignment of error, Copeland contends that it was improper for the trial court to grant a jury instruction concerning his contributory negligence due to a failure of proof on the appellee's part establishing his negligence. This Court agrees. There were only two witnesses at trial who testified as to the actual details of the accident itself. These two witnesses were the appellant Douglas Copeland and the appellee Willie Lee Butler. Copeland testified that his car was in good running order, and that he never exceeded 25 to 28 miles per hour. He also testified that he was driving in the extreme right-hand lane of Pascagoula Street and that he never deviated from this lane. The only other things he remembered from the accident were feeling the impact of something from his rear and looking through his passenger window at the telephone pole rushing to meet him. In support of their claim that Copeland was contributorily negligent, the appellees only put on two witnesses, Appellee Willie Lee Butler and Officer Phil Burnham. Butler testified that he began driving on the left hand lane of Pascagoula Street, attempting to move across the center lane and eventually into the right hand lane. However, there were cars passing on either side of him, and he was not able to get into the right hand lane as soon as he would have liked. He also testified that Copeland's car had to be on the right hand side of the garbage truck. Butler never saw Copeland's car until it was crossways on the front bumper of his truck. He also testified on cross-examination that there was a pretty good chance that he could have been over in the right hand lane, and pictures of Copeland's car show an impact point on the left rear side of his vehicle. Butler also offered no testimony concerning negligence on Copeland's part; indeed, this would have been difficult for him to do since he never saw Copeland's vehicle at all until it was on the front of his truck. Thus, Butler's testimony reveals no facts constituting negligence by Copeland. Officer Burnham was one of the first officers on the scene after the accident took place. However, the only noteworthy testimony he presented was the fact that he found skidmarks in the far right hand lane of Pascagoula Street going east, i.e., the lane in which Douglas Copeland was traveling when the accident took place. He also presented no testimony of any kind as to a negligent act on Copeland's part. Therefore, there was simply no evidence present in this record to support a finding of contributory negligence. It is well established under Mississippi law that jury instructions should only be granted where there is evidence presented to support the giving of those instructions. A party to an action is entitled to have the jury instructed regarding a genuine issue of material fact so long as there is credible evidence in the record which would support the instruction. Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss. 1986). See also Detroit Marine Engineering v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462, 465-466 (Miss. 1987); Barkley v. Miller Transporters, Inc., 450 So.2d 416, 419 (Miss. 1984); Lewis Grocer Co. v. Williamson, 436 So.2d 1378, 1380 (Miss. 1983); Alley v. Praschak Machine Co., 366 So.2d 661, 665 (Miss. 1979). There was simply no evidence presented in the record before this Court to justify the giving of a contributory negligence instruction, and it is the opinion of this Court that the trial court was in error in granting such an instruction. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that this assignment of error has merit. The reduction of the verdict by thirty percent (30%) is reversed.