Thomas v. Smith, No. 1999-CA-01819-COA.
| Decision Date | 16 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 1999-CA-01819-COA. |
| Citation | 786 So.2d 418 |
| Parties | Michael Ray THOMAS, Appellant v. A.H. SMITH, Jr. d/b/a Fawn Grove Restaurant, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Nancy Allen Wegener, Clarksdale, Attorney for Appellant.
William O. Luckett, Jr., Clarksdale, Jonathan Masters, Attorneys for Appellee.
Before McMILLIN, C.J., LEE, and PAYNE, JJ.
McMILLIN, C.J., for the Court:
¶ 1. Michael Ray Thomas, in a suit filed in the Circuit Court of Itawamba County, claimed he was injured when a chair he was sitting in collapsed. The incident occurred in a restaurant owned and operated by the defendant, A.H. Smith, Jr. at a time when Thomas was a customer of the business. At the close of the evidence presented on behalf of Thomas, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, based on a finding that Thomas had failed to present any evidence of negligence on the defendant's part. Thomas has perfected this appeal. We reverse and remand.
¶ 2. The trial court may direct a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's proof under authority of Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) if, in the opinion of the court, the plaintiff has failed to present credible evidence to establish the necessary elements of his right to recover. Hall v. Mississippi Chem. Express, Inc., 528 So.2d 796, 798 (Miss. 1988). The court must consider all evidence then before it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must concede to the plaintiff all favorable inferences that could reasonably be said to arise from that evidence. Benjamin v. Hooper Electronic Supply Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 1182, 1187 (Miss.1990). Only if, viewed in that light, the court determines that the matter is so overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant that no reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff, should the court direct a defendant's verdict. Id.
¶ 3. An appellate court, reviewing a trial court's decision to grant a directed verdict, is obligated to undertake a de novo review of the matter and may not indulge in the presumption that the trial court's decision was correct. In re Will of Smith, 722 So.2d 606 (¶ 17) (Miss.1998).
¶ 4. In this case, viewed in the light most favorable to Thomas, the evidence shows that a restaurant chair, believed to be at least ten years old, in which Thomas was sitting while a customer in Smith's restaurant, suddenly and without warning collapsed, causing Thomas to fall violently to the floor. The broken remnants of a chair were produced at trial and introduced into evidence. This evidence showed that, at some point in the past, the chair had been repaired with a series of wood screws. Further evidence verified that Smith and others working in the restaurant had, from time to time, found certain chairs had become "wobbly" and that, when such a chair was discovered, it was either repaired by Smith and returned to service or, if beyond repair, was discarded.
¶ 5. There appears to have been a disputed issue of fact as to whether the chair produced at trial was, in fact, the same chair in which Thomas was sitting when he fell to the floor. Thomas testified that he left the restaurant immediately after he fell and admitted during his testimony that he could not unequivocally identify the chair remnants as the same chair in which he was sitting, though he testified that it appeared similar in all respects. There was other evidence that Smith had gathered up the pieces of the chair the day of the incident. These chair remnants were produced by Smith during discovery in response to a specific request to produce the chair in which Thomas was sitting. At trial Smith was asked whether the chair received into evidence was, in fact, the same chair. In response, Smith testified, "To the best of my knowledge it is, but I don't know for positive." It is the view of this Court that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Smith's testimony would support a reasonable inference under the preponderance of the evidence standard that the chair introduced in evidence was the same one that broke under Thomas's weight. We will consider the matter further using that assumption.
¶ 6. This case is, of course, one sounding in negligence. Therefore, in order to recover, Thomas had the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence (a) a definable duty on Smith's part, (b) a breach of that duty, (c) an injury to the defendant proximately caused by that breach, and (d) actual loss or damage to the defendant arising out of the injury. Carpenter v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Partain v. Sta-Home Health Agency of Jackson, Inc., No. 2003-CA-00804-COA.
...court, the plaintiff has failed to present credible evidence establishing the necessary elements of his or her right to recover. Thomas v. Smith, 786 So.2d 418, 419(¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2001). When the defendant moves for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the co......
-
Scott v. City of Goodman
...13) (Miss. 2002)). As a customer of the BP store, it is undisputed that Scott was an invitee at the time of the incident. See Thomas v. Smith, 786 So.2d 418, 420(¶ 6) (Miss.Ct. App.2001). Therefore, Dickerson Petroleum, as the owner of the premises, owed a duty to Scott "to exercise reasona......
-
Thomas v. Shed 53, LLC
...a device's failure must be shown in order to establish a breach of the standard of reasonable care." Id. at 645 (¶12) (quoting Thomas v. Smith , 786 So. 2d 418, 420 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) ). The plaintiff failed to rebut the hospital's motion with any evidence showing it breached the re......
-
Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cascio
...of the defendant that no reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff, should the court direct a defendant's verdict. Id. Thomas v. Smith, 786 So.2d 418, 419 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2001). ¶ 13. Our task then, in light of the applicable standard of review, is to examine the evidence in the reco......