Mississippi Valley Silica Co. v. Eastman, 2012 Miss. LEXIS 340

Eastman worked as a sandblaster for 28 years at LeTourneau, which used silica sand purchased from MVS.
Eastman sued MVS under Mississippi’s products-liability statute for failure to warn or instruct about sandblasting dangers.
MVS requested a sophisticated-user jury instruction; the trial judge refused for two reasons, and instructions given did not adequately cover the defense.
The jury found MVS 60% at fault, awarded Eastman $7.6 million total, but punitive damages were reduced to zero due to MVS’s insolvency and noneconomic damages capped by statute.
On appeal, MVS argued eight defects, but the court found reversible error only on the jury-instruction issue and reversed/remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sophisticated-user instruction denial error	Eastman contends MVS’s defense was properly raised and instruction should be reformed.	MVS argued the instruction was flawed and confusing and should have been refused.	Trial court reversal for new trial; error on instruction not reformed.

Byrd v. McGill, 478 So.2d 302 (Miss.1985) (duty to reform problematic jury instruction in central issue)
Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss.1975) (jury instructions must aid jury with the law of the case)
Thomas v. State, 278 So.2d 469 (Miss.1973) (refusal of an inadequate instruction is error when central issue)
Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017 (Miss.1985) (duty to reform/advise on deficient proffered instruction)
McGill v. State, 478 So.2d 302 (Miss.1985) (central-issue instruction must be reformed or new instruction allowed)
Swan v. I.P., Inc., 613 So.2d 846 (Miss.1993) (learned-intermediary defense; reliance element)
Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239 (Miss.1993) (no sua sponte instruction duty in civil cases)
Cleveland v. State, 801 So.2d 812 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (court may amend technically flawed defense instruction)
McKee v. State, 791 So.2d 804 (Miss.2001) (adherence to civil jury-instruction standards)