 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
T & S Express3/25/2003
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - INSURANCE
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND RENDERED - 03/25/2003
. T&S;Express was found to be the real party in interest and was ordered to pay Liberty Mutual full indemnity of $298,000. Aggrieved T&S;asserts the following on appeal.
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE DIRECTED VERDICT MOTION, PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.
II. A NEW TRIAL IS IN ORDER AS THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING TWO JURY INSTRUCTIONS OFFERED BY LIBERTY AND REFUSING NUMEROUS JURY INSTRUCTIONS OFFERED BY T&S;
We reverse and render.
FACTS
. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company sought indemnity against T&S;Express, Inc., hereafter referred to as T&S; for a personal injury claim which Liberty paid on behalf of Norton Ramsey Motor Lines, Inc., its insured. Norton was sued as the employer of Thomas Teague under respondeat superior. It is undisputed that at the time of the accident, while Teague was driving a truck with Norton placards, he was actually employed by T&S; Teague's truck collided with a vehicle driven by the Myerses. The Myerses sued Norton and, as Norton's insurer, Liberty represented Norton against the claim. Liberty's motion for summary judgment was denied, and subsequently rather than taking the claim to trial, Liberty decided to settle the case by paying the Myerses $298,000, reserving indemnification rights therein.
. The Myerses attempted to file suit against T&S;directly but were barred by the statute of limitations. Norton filed a third party complaint denying any liability to the Myerses and asserting a right to indemnification from T&S;for any damages imposed on Norton in favor of the Myerses. T&S;sought but was denied summary judgment on the indemnity claim. A jury found against T&S;on the indemnity claim and awarded Liberty full indemnification.
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE DIRECTED VERDICT MOTION, PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.
. This Court's standard of review for the denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, peremptory instructions, and directed verdict is as follows:
his Court will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. If the facts so considered point so overwhelmingly in favor of the appellant that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, we are required to reverse and render. On the other hand if there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, affirmance is required. The above standards of review, however, are predicated on the fact that the trial judge applied the correct law. Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc., 697 So. 2d 373, 376 (Miss. 1997).
. The comment to M.R.C.P. 50, which provides for motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, states that "Rule 50 is a device for the court to enforce the rules of law by taking away from the jury cases in which the facts are sufficiently clear that the law requires a particular result." M.R.C.P. 50 cmt.
. The motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for the plaintiff. M.R.C.P.50(a). Upon denial of the motion for a directed verdict at the close of all evi
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|