 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Townsend v. Skelton9/20/2005
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/20/2005
BEFORE LEE, P.J., MYERS AND BARNES, JJ.
. Buster and Dana Townsend filed suit for personal injuries sustained by Buster Townsend when a van he was driving was struck by a trailer that had disengaged from a truck that was being driven by Stanley Skelton who, at the time, was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Thomas Paving, Inc. Following a trial on the merits, a Marshall County Circuit Court jury found in favor of Skelton and Thomas Paving, Inc. The Townsends then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. The motion was denied, and this appeal followed. The Townsends allege error on the part of the circuit court in denying their motion. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS
. Stanley Skelton testified at trial that on the morning of September 26, 2000, he hooked a trailer to his pickup truck in the same manner that he had done on previous occasions and left his employer's place of business in Holly Springs, Mississippi bound for Memphis, Tennessee. His job assignment that day called for him to travel to Memphis to retrieve a load of steel tubing and deliver it to his employer's shop in Holly Springs. On his return trip, while traveling east on I-240, another driver "whipped" in front of his vehicle, and Skelton applied his brakes to avoid a collision. When he put his foot back on the accelerator he felt the trailer break loose from the rear of his truck. The trailer crossed the median of I-240 and struck Buster Townsend's west-bound van.
. Mr. Townsend testified that as he was driving west on I-240 on the morning of September 26, he looked to his left and saw the trailer headed directly toward him. Upon impact, his van flipped and landed on its roof in the median of the highway. Mr. Townsend was rendered unconscious following the collision and sustained severe injuries.
. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Skelton and his employer, Thomas Paving, Inc., and the Townsends filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. The motion was denied. The Townsends argue that the denial of their motion constitutes reversible error.
ANALYSIS
1. Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
. The Townsends argue that the evidence at trial did not support the verdict reached by the jury, but that, to the contrary, the evidence clearly indicated that Skelton did something while driving that caused the trailer to break free. They say that common sense dictates that trailers do not just break free of trucks in the absence of some form of negligence, either in "hooking the trailer to the truck, or in driving the truck." The Townsends further argue that there was no evidence presented at trial supporting a verdict of no liability; therefore, in failing to find Skelton and Thomas Paving liable for Mr. Townsend's injuries, the jury ignored the evidence before it. For these reasons, they conclude, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted.
. This Court's standard of review on motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict requires that the evidence be considered in the light most favorable to the appellee, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Buskirk v. Elliott, 856 So. 2d 255, 266 ( ) (Miss. 2003). When so considered, if the facts point so overwhelmingly in favor of the appellant that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, this Court is required
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|