Opinion ID: 1735195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court erred in consolidating the cases of lanice fielder and bobbie fielder for trial purposes.

Text: ¶ 20. The Fielders next contend that the trial court erred in refusing jury instruction P-6. Jury instruction P-6 reads, as follows: The Court instructs the jury that Plaintiff is what is known in law as a guest passenger and is not responsible for any of injuries or damages she may have sustained in the accident and therefore if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that defendant caused by their negligence or contributed to the cause of the accident by negligence on their part and that plaintiff was injured and damaged by any such negligence on the part of defendant, then it is yur [sic] sworn duty to return a verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant and this is true whether you do or do not believe that Lanice Fielder was also guilty of negligence. The trial court refused the instruction on grounds that it was an incorrect statement of the law based upon Miss.Code Ann. § 85-5-7 (1991), and specifically, that it did not properly address the issues of relative fault and joint and several liability. ¶ 21. The Fielders argue that the instruction was correct, and if not, the trial court should have amended the instruction. For good measure, the Fielders also complain otherwise it was gross error to combine the cases for trial over objection of the appellants. Thus, their first complaint of error is that jury instruction P-6 did not violate the mandate of Miss.Code Ann. § 85-5-7 (1991). ¶ 22. Section 85-5-7 states: (1) As used in this section fault means an act or omission of a person which is a proximate cause of injury or death to another person or persons, damages to property, tangible or intangible, or economic injury, including but not limited to negligence, malpractice, strict liability, absolute liability or failure to warn. Fault shall not include any tort which results from an act or omission committed with a specific wrongful intent. (2) Except as may be otherwise provided in subsection (6) of this section, in any civil action based on fault, the liability for damages caused by two (2) or more persons shall be joint and several only to the extent necessary for the person suffering injury, death or loss to recover fifty percent (50%) of his recoverable damages. (3) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (6) of this section, in any civil action based on fault, the liability for damages caused by two (2) or more persons shall be several only, and not joint and several and a joint tort-feasor shall be liable only for the amount of damages allocated to him in direct proportion to his percentage of fault. In assessing percentages of fault an employer and the employer's employee or a principal and the principal's agent shall be considered as one (1) defendant when the liability of such employer or principal has been caused by the wrongful or negligent act or omission of the employee or agent. (4) Any defendant held jointly liable under this section shall have a right of contribution against fellow joint tort-feasors. A defendant shall be held responsible for contribution to other joint tort-feasors only for the percentage of fault assessed to such defendant. (5) Nothing in this section shall eliminate or diminish any defenses or immunities which currently exist, except as expressly noted herein. (6) Joint and several liability shall be imposed on all who consciously and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act, or actively take part in it. Any person held jointly and severally liable under this section shall have a right of contribution from his fellow defendants acting in concert. (7) In actions involving joint tort-feasors, the trier of fact shall determine the percentage of fault for each party alleged to be at fault. (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a cause of action. Nothing in this section shall be construed, in any way, to alter the immunity of any person. Miss.Code Ann. § 85-5-7 (1991). ¶ 23. MBC argues that P-6 as offered by the Fielders would have permitted a verdict in favor of Bobbie Fielder against MBC for the full amount of all damages she sustained, regardless of the fault of Lanice Fielder, in clear violation of Section 85-5-7 which provides that joint and several liability shall be applicable only up to fifty percent (50%) of a plaintiff's recoverable damages. Further, subsection 7 provides that in all instances where there are joint tortfeasors, the finders of fact must determine the relative percentages of fault for each culpable party. ¶ 24. MBC argues that the trial court properly gave instructions D-23 and D-25 to the jury which address these exact issues, as follows: If you find from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that: 1. Magnolia Beverage Company, Inc., the Defendant was negligent; and 2. Lanice Fielder, Plaintiff, was negligent; and 3. The negligence of both Magnolia Beverage Company, Inc., Defendant, and Lanice Fielder, Plaintiff, were proximate contributing causes of the accident in this case; and 4. Lanice Fielder and Bobbie Fielder, Plaintiffs, sustained injuries and damages caused by the combined negligence of Magnolia Beverage Company, Inc., Defendant, and Lanice Fielder, Plaintiff, then you will, in arriving at your verdict, determine that sum of money which will fairly and adequately compensate Lanice Fielder and Bobbie Fielder, Plaintiffs, for said injuries and damages, then reduce this sum in proportion to the causal negligence attributed to Lanice Fielder, Plaintiff, using the following method: 1. Determine the proportion that Plaintiff's causal negligence bears to the causal negligence as a whole, as a part or percentage of 100% (100% = total causal negligence of both factors in case); 2. Multiply the sum of money determined as damages by the percentage figure representing the proportion of Plaintiffs causal negligence; 3. Subtract the result of your multiplication from the sum you first determined to be Plaintiff's damages; and 4. Return your verdict for Lanice Fielder, Plaintiff, and Bobbie Fielder, Plaintiff, for the damages remaining after you have reduced them in proportion to Plaintiff's causal negligence. When you reach a verdict in this case, it should be written on a separate sheet of paper, need not be signed by you, and may be in any of the following forms: 1. If you find that the Plaintiff, Lanice Fielder, was totally at fault, then the verdict shall be as follows: We, the jury, find for the Defendant, Magnolia Beverage Company, Inc. 2. If you find that the Defendant was totally at fault, the form of your verdict shall b: (sic) We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff, Lanice Fielder, and assess her damages At $ _____. We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff, Bobbie Fielder, and assess her damages At $ _____. 3. If you find that this accident was the result of the combined fault of the Plaintiff, Lanice Fielder, and the Defendant, Magnolia Beverage Company, Inc., then your verdict shall be as follows: We, the jury, find the Plaintiffs, Lanice Fielder, total actual or compensatory damages to be $ _____. We, the jury, find the Plaintiffs, Bobbie Fielder, total actual or compensatory damages to be $ _____. We, the jury, find the Plaintiff, Lanice Fielder, ___% negligent. We, the jury, find the Defendant, Magnolia Beverage Company, Inc. was ___% negligent. Therefore, we reduce the Plaintiffs recovery in accordance with instruction D-23 to the net amount of $___ for Bobbie Fielder and $___ for Lanice Fielder.