 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Daley6/3/1999
disagree with most of the findings in the new opinion. However, I suspect that the jury in this case probably reached the right result the first time, and will likely again so conclude.
. Despite the expansive liability created by Merchants Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 187 Miss. 301, 188 So. 571(1939), I believe the jury likely found that the uncontradicted proof that Jackson's blood alcohol level of 0.17% was an intervening cause negating any liability established by the much contested evidence of whether Jackson's car in fact contacted any dirt spilled on the road by the county dump truck. I would not blindly follow Merchants in the instant case but would find as a matter of law that the intoxication of the driver was an intervening cause sufficient to break the chain of responsibility.
.Our tort law recognizes that an intervening cause may in fact negate the causal link to the earlier misfeasance or negligence. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 698 So. 2d 96, 100 (Miss. 1997). In this case, the proof was conclusive that Bryan Wade Jackson had an accident shortly after midnight and that his blood alcohol level was 0.17%.
.I also differ with language in the majority opinion finding that "Jackson's accident is covered by the U.S.F.&G; Policy, and Jefferson Davis County's immunity is waived to the extent of that coverage". I do not disagree, under Merchants, that the policy covers Jefferson Davis County. However, I believe the better view would be that the County's immunity is waived, subject to any applicable statutory exemptions or immunities, to the extent of coverage.
SMITH, J., JOINS THIS OPINION IN PART.
|