Opinion ID: 1671802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgement.

Text: ¶ 3. Upon considering the motion for summary judgment, the trial court was presented with the following uncontested facts: 1. None of the plaintiffs underwent medical testing to determine the presence of chemicals from the Reichhold site in his or her body. 2. No tests to determine contamination were performed on any of the plaintiffs' property or on the offsite locations where Reichhold allegedly disposed of chemicals. 3. The plaintiffs' own expert witness, Dr. Arthur Hume, testified that there are tests and air modeling which could have been performed to detect the presence of some of the chemicals within the plaintiffs' bodies. 4. Dr. Hume had no knowledge of any alleged improper disposal of chemicals and offered no opinion on potential exposure to chemicals from the offsite locations. 5. Dr. Hume admitted that he had no data to render an opinion on whether any of the plaintiffs were exposed to anything adverse from a 1977 fire at the plant. 6. Dr. Hume also admitted that the plaintiffs' attorneys told him that the plaintiffs had been exposed to chemicals from the site and that he relied only upon the information furnished to him by the plaintiffs' attorneys to form his opinion. 7. Not one of the 103 original plaintiffs had any proof of actual, present damages. ¶ 4. As to the law, it is clear that Mississippi does not recognize a cause of action for fear of possibly contracting a disease at some point in the future. See Beech v. Leaf River Forest Products, Inc., 691 So.2d 446, 451 (Miss. 1997); See also Leaf River Forest Products, Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So.2d 648, 658 (Miss. 1995). Nevertheless, in this case there is no substantial proof of exposure and medical evidence that indicates the plaintiffs may contract any disease at any point in time in the future. See Ferguson, supra, at 658. Therefore, summary judgment was entirely proper based upon the facts presented to the trial judge. ¶ 5. We recently dealt with the issue of the proof necessary to support a summary judgment in Travis v. Stewart, 680 So.2d 214 (Miss. 1996). We stated that ... bare assertions are simply not enough to avoid summary judgment. The non-movant may not rest upon allegations or denials in his pleadings. Travis, 680 So.2d at 218. In order for there to be genuine issues of material fact, the affidavits and other evidence must be sworn, made upon personal knowledge, and show that the party providing the factual evidence is competent to testify. Magee v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 551 So.2d 182, 186 (Miss. 1989). ¶ 6. The flashpoint in this controversy was reached when this matter was properly put before the trial court below at the summary judgment hearing. Since the plaintiffs below wholly failed to provide the trial court with adequate sworn proof to support their claims, summary judgment was appropriate. ¶ 7. AFFIRMED. PRATHER, C.J., PITTMAN, P.J., and BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ., concur. McRAE, J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by SULLIVAN, P.J. WALLER, J., not participating.