170 So. 3d 592
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Jan. 29, 2010, Christopher (Shane) Howell fell ~12–15 feet when the extending platform of a JLG CM2546 scissor lift collapsed; he suffered serious injuries.
- Bates Drywall (Howell’s employer) purchased the lift in 1993; Equipment Inc. sold it originally and continued to perform sporadic service and intermittent “annual” inspections through 2009.
- Equipment Inc. technician repaired a steering problem on Jan. 28, 2010 (the day before the accident); he did not perform a full inspection and testified he observed no dangerous condition on that visit.
- The Howells sued JLG (manufacturer) and Equipment Inc. (distributor/service provider). They settled with JLG; trial proceeded against Equipment Inc. only.
- Plaintiffs’ theory: Equipment Inc. breached duties (stemming from a 1992 distributor agreement and its service relationship) by failing to note missing capacity decals and bent platform C‑channels and by failing to warn Bates Drywall to take the lift out of service.
- A jury returned verdict for Equipment Inc.; the trial court denied the Howells’ motions for new trial and JNOV. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Howell’s Argument | Equipment Inc.’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict was against overwhelming weight/legal sufficiency (new trial / JNOV) | Equipment Inc. had an affirmative duty under a 1992 agreement and its service relationship to discover/report unsafe conditions (missing capacity decal, bent C‑channels); failure caused the accident | No ongoing contractual service obligation to Bates Drywall; Bates retained control and did not request a full inspection; service techs lacked authority to take equipment out of service; evidence supported verdict | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient and not against overwhelming weight; reasonable inferences supported jury verdict |
| Whether D‑24R (superseding cause) was improper | Instruction was inapplicable because it made foreseeability of employer reliance irrelevant to Equipment Inc.’s duties | Foreseeable Bates would rely on service for the steering repair, but the accident resulted from employer/employee acts (improper inspection/overloading) unrelated to the repaired steering; superseding‑cause question was factual for jury | Affirmed — instruction properly left intervening‑cause issues to the jury and any error harmless |
| Whether D‑38 (employer nondelegable duty) misstates law / imposes strict liability on employer | Instruction should have added requirement that employer exercise reasonable care; as given it suggested strict liability | Instruction correctly stated the nondelegable duty and other instructions required finding unsafe condition and employer’s failure to remedy before liability | Affirmed — instruction accurate and not misleading when read with others |
| Whether D‑39R (verdict form ordering damages before liability) confused jury and was error | Verdict form was confusing and led jury to fill out allocation despite finding no negligence | Substantial compliance with form requirements was sufficient; jury intent was clear (found for Equipment Inc.) | Affirmed — form sufficient; any deviation was harmless and intelligible |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for disturbing a verdict on weight-of-evidence grounds)
- Bruner v. Univ. of S. Miss., 501 So. 2d 1113 (Miss. 1987) (JNOV tests legal sufficiency; evidence viewed in light most favorable to non‑movant)
- Lift‑All Co. Inc. v. Warner, 943 So. 2d 12 (Miss. 2006) (analysis of foreseeable superseding/intervening causes)
- O’Cain v. Harvey Freeman & Sons Inc. of Miss., 603 So. 2d 824 (Miss. 1992) (superseding‑cause issues are for the trier of fact)
- Green v. Allendale Planting Co., 954 So. 2d 1032 (Miss. 2007) (statement of employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace)