 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Langford v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.6/9/1998
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/26/96
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT LOUIS GOZA JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
Laverne Langford [hereinafter plaintiff] appeals from the judgment of the Rankin County Circuit Court in which the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. [hereinafter defendant] on her personal injury claim. The plaintiff argues that the trial court committed the following reversible error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS P-2 AND P-3, WHICH REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF'S THEORY OF THE CASE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE JURY INSTRUCTED AS TO HER THEORY OF THE CASE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JNOV, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; THE VERDICT OF THE JURY WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND WAS CONTRARY TO LAW.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING, OVER OBJECTION, PHOTOGRAPHS NOT ACCURATELY DEPICTING THE INTERIOR OF THE DEFENDANT'S STORE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT.
Holding the plaintiff's assignments of error to be without merit, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS
At approximately 8:20 p.m. on the evening of August 11, 1993 the plaintiff and a friend entered the Wal-Mart store in Pearl, Mississippi. Upon entering the Wal-Mart premises the plaintiff and her friend walked to the rear of the store where they waited for a store employee to mix a can of paint for the plaintiff. During this time a notice was made over the store intercom announcing that the store was closing at 9:00 p.m. Additionally, one third of the lights in the store were turned off in order to indicate that the store was closing for the night. After her paint was mixed the plaintiff and her friend walked toward the check-out counter in the front of the store, with the plaintiff pushing a shopping cart in front of her. As the plaintiff turned and proceeded down the aisle leading to the check-out register, she slipped and fell on a yellowish liquid on the floor. Although the plaintiff apparently held onto the shopping cart in an attempt to prevent the fall, her feet nonetheless slipped out from under her and she struck the floor. As a result of her slip and fall the plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the defendant. It is from an adverse jury verdict in the trial court that the plaintiff takes the instant appeal.
ANALYSIS
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS P-2 AND P-3, WHICH REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF'S THEORY OF THE CASE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE JURY INSTRUCTED AS TO HER THEORY OF THE CASE.
With this assignment of error the plaintiff argues that she "intended to go to the jury in this case with two theories of liability against defendant..." and that the only jury instructions containing her theories of liability were proposed instructions "P-2" and "P-3," which the trial court refused. The plaintiff states that the theories of liability upon which she wished to proceed at trial were 1) that the allegedly inadequate lighting was the dangerous condition on the defendant's premises, and 2) that the defendant was negligent in dimming the lighting after the store closed but while customers remained inside. On appeal the plaintiff
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|