 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.9/6/2001
7)).
. In the case before us, there is no proof that the Clark's witnesses listened for the bell, that their attention was in any way directed to it, or that the witnesses must have heard it if it did ring. When asked, none of the witnesses for Clark could affirmatively testify that the whistle was not properly sounded. Rather, each would only testify as to not hearing it. When considered against the affirmative testimony of the train crew and, more importantly, the event recorded readings taken from the locomotive, which undisputably show that the whistle was properly sounded, Clark's completely negative evidence is legally insufficient to generate a triable issue.
. This Court has clearly articulated what is needed to create a jury question. "A mere scintilla of evidence for the plaintiff is insufficient to present a question for the jury. There must be conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question." Columbus Paper & Chem., Inc. v. Chamberlin, 687 So.2d 1143, 1148 (Miss. 1996). See also Stranz v. Pinion, 652 So.2d 783, 741 (Miss. 1995); Hertz Corp. v. Goza, 306 So.2d 657, 661 (Miss. 1974). In the present case, Clark's witnesses that would only testify to not hearing the train whistle versus the affirmative testimony from the railroad company witnesses does not create a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question.
. The grant of summary judgment by the lower court should be affirmed. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
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.
|
|