 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O'Neal v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories3/28/2000
versed for absence of the form instruction, O'Neal contends that when a comparative negligence instruction is given to the jury, in addition to the general form of the verdict, a specific form for a comparative negligence verdict should also be given. Contending this was the rule as stated by the Burton court, and the reason for its reversal, O'Neal argues that the trial court in the case at hand erred in failing to give such a specific form instruction. O'Neal has misstated Burton. Burton simply stated that when a comparative negligence instruction is given, in addition to the general form of the verdict, "the following language could also be included: If you find both parties negligent, the form of your verdict may be: We, the jury, find plaintiff and defendant negligent and that plaintiff is responsible for ____% of the damages. We find plaintiff's damages to be $_____." Id. at 582-83. The court did not state that such a specific form of the verdict pertaining to comparative negligence should be, or was required to be, given to the jury when there already was a comparative negligence instruction given, but instead stated that the court could do as such. In addition, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-157 (1972) states: "No special form of verdict is required, and where there has been a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law in rendering a verdict, a judgment shall not be arrested or reversed for mere want of form therein." Neither Burton nor this statute establishes the idea that when a comparative negligence instruction is given to the jury, explaining the concept in full, a sensible verdict will be disturbed unless there is a specific form of the verdict instruction provided.
. O'Neal also cited Harrison v. Smith, 379 So. 2d 517, 518-19 (Miss. 1980) in an attempt to prove the trial court committed error in not providing a different form of the verdict instruction. The Harrison court held that the trial judge has the ultimate responsibility to insure that the verdict of the jury is returned in the proper form, even in the absence of a request for such from either party. O'Neal attempts to draw a connection between Harrison and the case at hand. However, the two cases are clearly distinguishable. Harrison held that the trial court committed error because it failed to return the jury to its room to reword the verdict so that it was put into reasonably clear form. The issue at hand is whether or not the trial court committed error in failing to give a jury instruction for a specific form of a verdict in a comparative negligence case. On this issue, Harrison is irrelevant on appeal.
. From this analysis, this Court concludes that the lower court did not commit error in failing to give such an instruction. This assignment of error is without merit. Accordingly, this Court affirms.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, IRVING, LEE, PAYNE, AND THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
|