Bridges v. Kitchings6/11/2002
. Kitchings, therefore, the objection should have been overruled.
. Bridges cites no authority to support this assertion of error. Failure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court's obligation to review such issues. Williams, 708 So. 2d at 1362-63; Grey, 638 So. 2d at 491; McClain, 625 So. 2d at 781; Smith, 599 So. 2d at 532.
. The party with the burden of proof is allowed to open closing arguments, followed by a response by the opposing party, and, finally, followed by a rebuttal by the party with the burden of proof. City of Jackson v. McCardle's Estate, 198 So. 736, 736 (Miss. 1940). The record reflects that damages were not mentioned during the first half of closing argument by counsel for Bridges nor were they mentioned during the closing argument by counsel for Dr. Cook and Dr. Kitchings. In order to rebut the issue of damages, counsel for Bridges should have raised this issue when he was allowed to open closing arguments. By failing to do so, Bridges forfeited the right to complain on appeal.
VIII. WAS THE VERDICT OF THE LOWER COURT AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
. In determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, we must accept as true the evidence presented as supportive of the verdict, and we will disturb a jury verdict only when convinced that the lower court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial or if the final result will result in an unconscionable injustice. Herrington v. Spell, 692 So. 2d 93, 103 (Miss. 1997). It is well established that a jury verdict in a civil case will not be disturbed on appeal unless the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and credible testimony or if the jury has been confused by errant instructions by the lower court, or if the jury's verdict is a result of bias, passion, and prejudice. Southwest Miss. Regional Med. Ctr. v. Lawrence, et al., 684 So. 2d 1257, 1267 (Miss. 1996); Bobby Kitchens, Inc. v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 560 So. 2d 129, 132 (Miss. 1989). Further, since the jury verdict favored Dr. Cook and Dr. Kitchings in the case at hand, in our review all evidentiary conflicts are resolved in their favor, all reasonable inferences which flow from the testimony are viewed in their favor, and we must assume that the jury drew all permissible inferences from the evidence offered in favor of Dr. Cook and Dr. Kitchings. Burnham v. Tabb, 508 So. 2d 1072, 1077 (Miss. 1987); City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So. 2d 475, 477 (Miss. 1983). The evidence in the case at hand supports the verdict of the lower court.
IX. DID BRIDGES RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL?
. Bridges asserts that the cumulative effect of the above listed errors prevented her from receiving a fair trial. This assertion of error is moot due to the fact that we find no error above. Carlton v. Mississippi Transp. Com'n, 749 So. 2d 170, 179 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THE APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR. BRIDGES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|