Walter Griffith, Jr. v. Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 203 So. 3d 579

Background

Plaintiff Walter Griffith, a licensed master electrician, was injured when a 10-foot metal conduit struck a bare high-voltage conductor on an Entergy pole while Griffith and a coworker worked from a bucket truck.
Griffith was employed by BOMAC; BOMAC’s president had asked Entergy to perform the pole work but Entergy declined, instructing BOMAC workers to remain at least ten feet from high-voltage lines per its service policy.
Griffith sued Entergy alleging gross/willful negligence, claiming Entergy had a nondelegable duty to install conduit, supervise, de-energize lines, or use semi-insulated (“tree”) wire as a safety measure.
Entergy moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to perform the work or supervise (MPSC policy placed conduit responsibility on customer), and that plaintiff failed to comply with statutory notice requirements to de-energize lines.
The trial court excluded several expert theories (untimely or irrelevant), allowed only the tree-wire theory to proceed, then granted summary judgment after finding plaintiff’s expert offered only speculative opinions that tree wire more-probably-than-not would have prevented the injury.
Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed: Entergy owed no duty to install conduit or be present; exclusion of the "neutral wire" theory was proper; tree-wire opinion failed to establish proximate causation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to install conduit / be present	Griffith: Entergy’s Manual and status as utility impose nondelegable duty to install conduit, supervise, or send crew near its equipment	Entergy: MPSC policy/tariff controls and makes customer (BOMAC) responsible; no duty to be present or perform work	Court: No duty; MPSC policy controls; summary judgment proper on this theory
Exclusion of expert opinion re: neutral conductor below transformer	Griffith: Neutral conductors carry current when touched to ground; opinion relevant and timely disclosed	Entergy: Theory untimely and irrelevant—injury was from conductor above transformer	Court: Exclusion affirmed—opinion irrelevant to causation and untimely under Rule 26(e) disclosures
Admissibility of expert tree-wire testimony (Daubert challenge)	Griffith: Semi-insulated (tree) wire would likely have prevented injury; Zipse’s opinions admissible	Entergy: Zipse’s tree-wire causation theory is not generally accepted, speculative, and unsupported by data	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion denying Daubert strike; but expert evidence insufficient on causation
Proximate causation re: tree wire preventing injury	Griffith: Tree wire would more-probably-than-not have prevented injury	Entergy: No evidence tree wire would have been in good condition or more likely than not prevented injury; opinions speculative	Court: No genuine issue of material fact—expert testimony offered only possibilities, not probabilities; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standard for expert testimony)
Nichols v. Tubb, 609 So. 2d 377 (Miss. 1992) (disclosure rule requires substance of expert opinions and grounds)
White v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 905 So. 2d 506 (Miss. 2004) (verdicts require probabilities, not mere possibilities)
Hill v. Mills, 26 So. 3d 322 (Miss. 2010) (expert opinions must be more than unsupported speculation)
Tunica County v. Matthews, 926 So. 2d 209 (Miss. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
Eli Inv. v. Silver Slipper Casino Venture, LLC, 118 So. 3d 151 (Miss. 2013) (existence of legal duty is question of law)
Enter. Leasing Co. S. Cent. v. Bardin, 8 So. 3d 866 (Miss. 2009) (plaintiff must prove existence of duty to succeed on negligence claim)
Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So. 2d 854 (Miss. 1999) (trial court has wide discretion on expert qualifications)
Laurel Yamaha, Inc. v. Freeman, 956 So. 2d 897 (Miss. 2007) (duty as threshold element in negligence)