 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] McFarland v. Leake2/18/2003
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 6/28/2001
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/18/2003
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
. On June 19, 1996, Gordon McFarland, on behalf of the estate of Robert McFarland, filed a wrongful death suit in the Wilkinson County Circuit Court against Mildred Leake. The suit arose out of an April 1994 accident where Robert McFarland's truck and Mildred Leake's car collided, killing McFarland. In the complaint, the plaintiff/appellant specifically alleged that the sole cause of the accident was Leake's negligence in operating her car, and as a result McFarland's estate was entitled to two million dollars in actual damages and five million dollars in punitive damages for physical and mental pain and suffering experienced by the deceased, for loss of future earnings, and for loss of companionship and society, among other things. In November 1997, Leake filed a motion for summary judgment, which the judge granted after a hearing. On behalf of the estate of the deceased, Gordon McFarland argues on appeal that the judge abused his discretion in finding no genuine issue of material fact existed as would defeat Leake's motion for summary judgment. We review this issue and find no abuse of discretion; thus, we affirm.
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING THE APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT?
. At the outset, we look to our standard of review concerning review of summary judgment matters:
This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo. As such, all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and they are given the benefit of every reasonable doubt. The burden is placed on the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. A material fact is a factual issue "that matters in an outcome determinative sense." All questions of law are reviewed de novo. Sample v. Haga, 826 So. 2d 1293 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted).
We also note the further burden on the movant:
We have stated the party moving for summary judgment has the job of persuading the court, first, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and, second, that on the basis of the facts established, he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant carries a burden of persuasion, not a burden of proof . . . . he movant has no duty to provide an evidentiary predicate to negate the existence of a material fact as to those issues on which he does not bear the burden of proof at trial. Rather, as to issues where the movant does not bear the burden of proof at trial, he must initially only make a sufficient "informing," "pointing out," or "showing" that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-movant's case. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co., 826 So. 2d 1206 ( ) (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted).
. Summary judgments are addressed in Rule 56 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, part (c) of the rules states that the motion for summary judgment should be granted if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." M.R.C.P. 56(c).
. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment McFarland submitted three affidavits -- one from the Woodville Chief of Police attesting to the authenticity of the police records
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.
|
|