146 So. 3d 393
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- May 6, 2009 collision occurred involving Big M Transportation's Unit 279 tractor-trailer on a highway in Mississippi.
- Virges, Big M employee, allegedly parked Unit 279 at Big M's HQ early morning and later left the area; Keena testified about Virges waking and returning to sleep.
- Satellite data showed Unit 279 dropped off at 12:43 a.m. and exited the Big M lot at 1:38 a.m.; Tyrone and Annie Thornton sued Big M and John Doe.
- Amended complaint added Virges as a defendant; court allowed consolidation of complaints and set discovery/motion timelines.
- Various motions for summary judgment were filed by Farm Bureau, Virges, and Big M; circuit court granted Big M’s motion on May 17, 2013.
- Thorntons appeal contending untimely filing, Rule 4.03 noncompliance, and remaining factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Untimeliness of Big M's summary judgment | Big M's motion was filed after deadlines; Thorntons argue untimeliness. | Record shows amended complaint and discovery plan allowed motions; no prejudice. | Not untimely; motion timely under record and court's allowances. |
| Rule 4.03(2) compliance | Memorandum of authorities not filed concurrently with motion; violates Rule 4.03. | Delay did not prejudice Thorntons; purposes of rule satisfied; harmless error. | Nonstrict compliance permitted; no reversible error; rule satisfied in effect. |
| Genuine issues of material fact exist | Debate over whether Unit 279 was stolen by third party or negligently left by Virges. | Evidence shows unauthorized theft and independent intervening criminal act; no proximate causation. | No genuine issue; intervening thief superseded Big M's liability; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faul v. Perlman, 104 So.3d 148 (Miss.Ct.App. 2012) (harmless-error approach to Rule 4.03 violations)
- Braddock Law Firm, PLLC v. Becnel, 949 So.2d 38 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (courts may overlook Rule 4.03(2) noncompliance if purposes are satisfied)
- Estate of Jackson v. Miss. Life Ins. Co., 755 So.2d 15 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (harmless-error rationale for rule compliance defects)
- Stribling v. Rushing's, Inc., 115 So.3d 103 (Miss.Ct.App. 2013) (burden to present significant probative evidence to survive summary judgment)
- Perez v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., 75 So.3d 609 (Miss.Ct.App. 2011) (elements of negligence and proximate cause; preponderance standard)
- Williams ex rel. Raymond v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 99 So.3d 112 (Miss. 2012) (foreseeability and superseding criminal acts; intervening causes)
- Southern Heritage Ins. Co. v. C.E. Frazier Constr. Co., 809 So.2d 668 (Miss. 2002) (criminal acts can supersede liability if not foreseeable)
- Davis v. Christian Bhd. Homes of Jackson, Miss. Inc., 957 So.2d 390 (Miss.Ct.App. 2007) (proximate cause defined by cause-in-fact and foreseeability)