 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Southwest Mississippi Electric Power Association v. Harried6/6/2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/1997
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: $1 MILLION DOLLAR VERDICT FOR APPELLEES
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND RENDERED - 06/06/00
. This action arises out of an incident that occurred on February 28, 1995, wherein Stanley Harried suffered severe and permanent injuries from electrical burns to his body when he came into contact with an electrical wire owned by Southwest Mississippi Electric Power Association. The trial testimony was in direct conflict on the factual question of how Harried's injuries occurred. Both sides introduced lay witnesses and expert witnesses. The outcome of the trial was a jury verdict in favor of Harried in the sum of $700,000 and in favor of his wife, Annie Wilson Harried, on her loss of consortium claim in the sum of $300,000.
. Feeling aggrieved, Southwest Mississippi Power Electric Association (Southwest) filed this appeal with the following statement of issues, quoted verbatim from its brief:
1. WAS STANLEY HARRIED'S TESTIMONY SO CONTRARY TO PHYSICAL FACTS AND THE LAWS OF ELECTRICITY THAT THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT HE BURNED HIMSELF WHILE UP ON A POLE STEALING WIRE?
2. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WAS THE VERDICT IN FAVOR OF STANLEY HARRIED AND HIS WIFE AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
3. WERE SOUTHWEST POWER'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL IMPERMISSIBLY PREJUDICED WHEN PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL GRATUITOUSLY MADE A WITNESS OUT OF THE COURT BAILIFF, HIS PERSONAL CLIENT, AND THE BAILIFF BOTH SERVED AS BAILIFF AT THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL AND TESTIFIED IN UNIFORM FOR THE PLAINTIFF, ALL IN THE FACE OF A PRIOR COURT RULING PROHIBITING ANY WITNESS FROM SERVING AS BAILIFF?
4. WAS PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S DESCRIPTION OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT A GROUND FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT TO ADMIT THAT HEARSAY AT TRIAL, WHERE THE HEARSAY WAS OFFERED TO ARGUE A THIRD PARTY DECLARANT TRUTHFULLY INTENDED TO AND SUBSEQUENTLY DID PERSUADE DEFENSE WITNESS JIMMY WILLIAMS TO FABRICATE TESTIMONY?
5. WERE STATEMENTS ON THE DAY OF THE ACCIDENT THAT STANLEY HARRIED WAS HURT CUTTING WIRE, MADE BY PEOPLE WHOM THE JURY COULD HAVE BELIEVED GOT THEIR INFORMATION FROM JIMMY WILLIAMS, ADMISSIBLE IRRESPECTIVE OF TRUTH TO REBUT THE ALLEGATION OF LATER FABRICATION BY WILLIAMS, AND WAS ANNIE HARRIED'S STATEMENT THAT DAY THAT STANLEY WAS CUTTING WIRE A
PARTY ADMISSION, EVEN THOUGH SHE DID NOT PERSONALLY WITNESS THE ACCIDENT?
6. IN LIGHT OF M.R.E. 608, WHICH ALLOWS THE EXPRESSION OF AN OPINION CONCERNING A WITNESS' CHARACTER FOR TRUTHFULNESS BUT FORBIDS ADMISSION OF EITHER EXTRINSIC FACTS OR OPINIONS ON OTHER CHARACTER TRAITS, DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR WHEN IT ALLOWED SHERIFF PETER WALKER TO TESTIFY THAT DEFENSE WITNESS JIMMY WILLIAMS WAS NOT MENTALLY SOUND, HAD BEEN A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, AND DRANK ON A DAILY BASIS?
7. WHETHER A NEW TRIAL, IF GRANTED, SHOULD BE HELD I) IN A COUNTY OTHER THAN JEFFERSON COUNTY BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE ARISING OUT OF TESTIMONY BY SHERIFF WALKER AND THE COURT'S CUSTOMARY BAILIFF, AND II) BEFORE A JUDGE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SHERIFF WALKER AND HAS NOT DECLARED A BELIEF IN HIS HONESTY?
Finding that the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to Harried, will not sustain the verdict, we reverse and render.
Facts
. There were only two witnesses to the accident, the appellee Stanley Harried, and his passenger, Jimmy Williams. Each gave di
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|