Griffin v. Fletcher
| Decision Date | 23 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 50532,50532 |
| Citation | 362 So.2d 594 |
| Parties | Gertrude GRIFFIN v. Wade J. FLETCHER. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Don H. Evans, Jackson, for appellant.
Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Forrest W. Stringfellow, Gulfport, for appellee.
Before SMITH, BROOM and LEE, JJ.
LEE, Justice, for the Court:
Gertrude Griffin filed suit against Wade J. Fletcher in the Circuit Court, First Judicial District of Hinds County, Honorable William F. Coleman, the presiding judge. From a verdict and judgment in favor of Fletcher, she appeals here and assigns the following errors in the trial below:
(1) The verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was contrary to instructions given by the court.
(2) The verdict of the jury was inadequate and evinced bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury or the verdict indicated that the jury was confused by the instructions.
(3) The trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial on damages only, or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
(4) The trial court erred in granting appellee Instruction No. 7.
(5) The trial court erred in granting appellee Instruction No. 9.
Appellant, a 43-year-old nurse's aide and school bus driver for the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, was driving a bus on her school route May 10, 1976, in the City of Jackson. She stopped to pick up a school child and turned on flashing lights attached to the bus. Appellee, driving a Veterans' Cab, struck the bus at the left rear bumper with the right front of the cab. He testified that "I misjudged and hit it."
When appellant completed her route, she began to suffer pain in her right knee, her foot was swollen and she soaked them in hot water. The next day she was examined by Dr. Robert Smith, who found that she had pain and tenderness in her right knee. She also was complaining of stiffness and pain in her neck. Dr. Smith prescribed Darvon for the pain and saw her for the next four (4) days. She was subsequently referred to an orthopedist and was hospitalized in University Hospital and St. Dominics' Hospital.
At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial judge granted a peremptory instruction on liability to the plaintiff. There is no cross-appeal to that action. The verdict of the jury was "We, the Jury, find for Wade J. Fletcher" and judgment was entered for the defendant.
The first four assigned errors will be discussed together.
The evidence is undisputed that appellant sustained some injury in the collision and that she suffered damage as a result. Therefore, she was entitled to compensation for same, if the peremptory instruction on liability was properly granted. In Burrell v. Goss, 245 Miss. 420, 146 So.2d 78 (1962), the trial court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff. The jury verdict was in favor of the defendant and assessed damages for the plaintiff at nothing. This Court said:
"In other words, according to all of the evidence, the plaintiff sustained at least some injury.
The court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff. The other instructions in her behalf went only to the form of verdict and the measure of damages. The only instructions given for the defendant admonished the jury not to make an award based solely on speculation or conjecture, and the nine-juror verdict.
The jury returned the following verdict:
After the return of the verdict, the judge made the following comment: 'For all practical purposes, the court will consider this as a verdict for the plaintiff by assessing her damages as a consequence of the accident at nothing.' Judgment was entered accordingly.
The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled, and she has appealed here.
The law of the case, in whatever form presented, is for the court to determine. 53 Am.Jur. Trial, Sec. 510, p. 412. 88 C.J.S. Trial § 267, p. 727, says: 'It is the province of the court to instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case, and it is the duty of the jury to act on the law as received by them from the court.'
Besides, 'Nonconformity of the verdict to the judge's charge is ground for a new trial, according to the weight of authority, regardless of the showing as to whether the instructions were right or wrong. Even if erroneous, they constitute the law governing the case, and it is the duty of the jury to follow them. Any other rule, it is said, would lead to endless confusion * * * '. 39 Am.Jur., New Trial, Sec. 127, pp. 136-7. 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 68, pp. 201-202." 245 Miss. at 424-425, 146 So.2d at 79-80.
Likewise, in Banfill v. Byrd, 122 Miss. 288, 84 So. 227 (1920), the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff, but the verdict was for the defendant. The Court said there:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Guild, No. 2004-CA-02532-SCT (Miss. 10/30/2008)
...by the parties are corrected. See Savory v. First Union Nat'l Bank of Del., 954 So. 2d 930, 934 (Miss. 2007) (citing Griffin v. Fletcher, 362 So. 2d 594, 595 (Miss.1978)). ¶ 24. Young argues Instructions P-5 and P-6 properly advised the jury of the facts, law, and theory of the case. Young ......
-
Thomas v. Harrah's Vicksburg Corp.
...v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 560 So.2d 129, 132 (Miss.1989); Clayton v. Thompson, 475 So.2d 439, 443 (Miss.1985); Griffin v. Fletcher, 362 So.2d 594, 596 (Miss.1978). Additionally, because the jury's verdict in this case favored Harrah's and Yates, all evidentiary conflicts are resolved......
-
Caruso v. Picayune Pizza Hut, Inc.
...City of Bay St. Louis; Allen v. Blanks; Griffin v. Fletcher; Allen v. Ritter."Allen v. Blanks, 384 So.2d 63 (Miss.1980); Griffin v. Fletcher, 362 So.2d 594 (Miss.1978); and Allen v. Ritter, 235 So.2d 253 (Miss.1970), were not cited in the appellant's original brief. None deals with the inju......
-
Dunn v. Jack Walker's Audio Visual Center
...530 So.2d 1341, 1345 (Miss.1988). Plaintiff Dunn requested no such instruction at trial. Dunn calls our attention to Griffin v. Fletcher, 362 So.2d 594 (Miss.1978) and Moak v. Black, 230 Miss. 337, 92 So.2d 845 (1957) but finds no comfort there. In Griffin, the trial court had submitted to ......