 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.9/6/2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/21/1999
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. SWAN YERGER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 09/06/2001
. This matter arises from a summary judgment motion granted to Richard Whiddon and the Illinois Central Railroad Company (ICR) on each of Sharon Clark's, administratrix of the Estate of Patricia Martin, (Clark) claims arising from a grade-crossing automobile accident which occurred on Old Pearson Road in Rankin County. Clark appealed the trial court's decision asserting the following errors:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CLARK FAILED TO PRESENT PROOF SUFFICIENT TO CREATE A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT IN SUPPORT OF HER REMAINING CLAIMS
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO PRECLUDE ICR FROM ASSERTING FEDERAL PREEMPTION AS A DEFENSE TO CLARK'S CLAIM OF INADEQUATE WARNING DEVICES AT THE RAILWAY CROSSING
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ICR WAS ENTITLED TO ASSERT THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION DEFENSE TO CHARGES OF EXCESSIVE TRAIN SPEED WITHOUT PROVING THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED THE SUBJECT TRACK
On March 27, 2001, Clark filed a motion to abandon certain liability theories and supplement the record with color photographs which was granted without objection. Clark's assignments of error labeled II and III were abandoned. We therefore proceed with an analysis of the remaining allegation of error.
FACTS
. On the morning of June 4, 1996, Patricia Martin left her home in Rankin County, following her usual route to work, along Old Pearson Road in order to access U.S. Highway 49. Before reaching the highway, Martin was forced to traverse a railway crossing. The crossing is equipped with reflectorized "crossbuck" warning signs as well as pavement markings.
. Martin traveled in an easterly direction toward the crossing, and as she drove across the railroad tracks that intersect with the road, a train owned by ICR and operated by Whiddon, the locomotive's engineer, entered the crossing from the south, striking her vehicle. The train carried the vehicle approximately a quarter of a mile down the track, killing Martin.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. Rule 56(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure allows summary judgment where no genuine issues of material fact exist such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. To prevent summary judgment, the nonmoving party must establish a genuine issue of material fact by means allowable under the rule. Lumberman's Underwriting Alliance v. City of Rosedale, 727 So. 2d 710, 712-13 (Miss. 1998). When reviewing the granting or the denying of summary judgment, we use the same standard employed by the trial court under Rule 56(c). This Court conducts de novo review of orders granting or denying summary judgment and looks at all the evidentiary matters before it--admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. City of Rosedale, 727 So. 2d at 712-13. If any triable issues of material fact exist, the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment will be reversed. Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 362 (Miss.1984).
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CLARK FAILED TO PRESENT PROOF SUFFICIENT TO CREATE A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT IN SUPPORT OF HER REMAINING CLAIMS
. Clark's remaining claim on appeal is a mixtur
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|