Ned B. Clark, Jr. v. Charles McCorkle
252 So. 3d 603
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 16, 2012, Ned Clark rear-ended Charles McCorkle’s slow-moving farm tractor + flatbed trailer on MS Hwy 35; Ned suffered serious injuries including amputation.
- The Clarks sued McCorkle (negligence, gross negligence, negligent per se for inadequate lighting/visibility). McCorkle moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for McCorkle, reasoning the following driver ordinarily has primary duty to avoid a rear-end collision absent an emergency or unusual condition, and it found no evidence of fog/unusual condition or of adequate foundation for the plaintiffs’ expert.
- The trial court also found no statutory duty requiring reflective tape/emblem on the tractor and concluded Walton’s (plaintiffs’ expert) opinions were speculative because he relied largely on the complaint and inspected the scene years later.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether (1) fog/low visibility constituted an unusual or emergency condition and (2) McCorkle’s lighting/reflectors were inadequate under those conditions. The remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims were rendered moot by reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on negligence claims | Clark: evidence (affidavit/deposition, Walton’s report) shows fog/low visibility and inadequate illumination, creating jury questions | McCorkle: following-driver rule applies; no unusual condition; record shows daylight/clear; expert speculative | Reversed — genuine issues of material fact exist regarding fog/unusual condition and trailer illumination; case remanded for trial |
| Whether fog/low visibility constituted an "unusual or emergency condition" | Clark: Ned’s testimony, complaint allegations, and Walton’s reconstruction show patches of fog and reduced sight distance | McCorkle: Ned’s deposition indicates no fog at the knoll and he saw the tractor when topping the hill; complaint alone insufficient to defeat SJ | Reversed — court found sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue on whether fog was an unusually dangerous condition |
| Whether Walton’s expert opinion was a sufficient factual basis to defeat summary judgment | Clark: Walton’s report and site inspection support his opinion that low visibility/fog prevented timely perception/reaction | McCorkle: Walton relied on the complaint, did not review depositions, inspected site years later, and conceded he could not know reflector condition at crash | Court did not resolve expert-admissibility issues (moot on remand) but treated Walton’s evidence as creating factual disputes precluding SJ |
| Whether statutory or per se negligence exists for reflector/lighting failures | Clark: statutes and common-law duty support claim tractor/trailer lacked adequate warning/illumination | McCorkle: farm-vehicle statutory exemptions and lack of statute specifically requiring placard; even if statutory inapplicable, no proof of condition at time of crash | Court found triable issue whether McCorkle was negligent in illumination under the circumstances and reversed SJ |
Key Cases Cited
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat'l Ins., 109 So.3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo, view evidence for nonmoving party)
- Albert v. Scott's Truck Plaza Inc., 978 So.2d 1264 (Miss. 2008) (materials considered on summary judgment include depositions, affidavits, interrogatories)
- Stringer v. Trapp, 30 So.3d 339 (Miss. 2010) (summary judgment proper only if no genuine issue of material fact)
- Spann v. Shuqualak Lumber Co., 990 So.2d 186 (Miss. 2008) (presence of fog/plant emissions created jury question; factual issues preclude SJ)
- White v. Miller, 513 So.2d 600 (Miss. 1987) (following-driver duty; emergency/unusual-condition exception creates jury question)
- Elsworth v. Glindmeyer, 234 So.2d 312 (Miss. 1970) (proximate cause test in automobile collisions)
- Jamison v. Barnes, 8 So.3d 238 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (no per se rule that following driver is negligent; emergency/unusual conditions remove bright-line application)
- Szarapski v. Joaquin, 139 Cal.App.2d 27 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1956) (court found issues of fact where leading car was slow/unlighted in darkness)
- Brown-Miller Co. v. Howell, 224 Miss. 136, 79 So.2d 818 (Miss. 1955) (dense fog and truck position on shoulder raised jury question on proximate cause)