Lacy v. CSX Transportation, Inc. case summary
520 S.E.2d 418 (W. Va. 1999)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiffs sought review of judgment entered upon jury's verdict by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (West Virginia) in an action filed against defendant railroad for injuries sustained as a result of a collision.
FACTS:
-Plaintiff passengers filed suit against defendants, a railroad and the driver of the car, as a result of injuries suffered when defendant driver collided with a train owned by defendant railroad. Although the jury found that both defendants were negligent, it concluded in a special verdict that the negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries.
-Plaintiffs asserted on appeal that the trial court erred in excluding a diagram prepared by defendant railroad's employee as hearsay and that counsel for one of the defendants was permitted to engage in improper argument regarding joint and several liability when he posited that his client would be charged with paying the entire judgment if both defendants were found liable.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the court held that the argument by defendant's counsel constituted reversible error and that it was inappropriate and an abuse of discretion for the judge to either instruct the jury or permit counsel to communicate to the jury about the post-judgment effect of joint and several liability. Furthermore, the court's exclusion of the diagram on hearsay grounds was improper, but the record was admissible under the business records exception.
RULES:
In cases involving concurrent and/or comparative negligence, the jury is asked to apportion fault only to those parties whose negligence is otherwise found to have proximately caused the injury. Importantly, the jury should not be asked to consider a defendant's individual degree of negligence until it has first considered the primary issues of the defendant's liability to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's degree of contributory negligence.
CONCLUSION: Judgment in favor of defendant railroad was reversed in an action for injuries sustained by plaintiffs as a result of a collision with a train. The court held that the trial court erred by allowing arguments regarding the post-judgment effect of joint and several liability; this constituted an abuse of discretion. The exclusion of a diagram on hearsay grounds was not justified when the record was admissible under the business records exception.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
520 S.E.2d 418 (W. Va. 1999)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiffs sought review of judgment entered upon jury's verdict by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (West Virginia) in an action filed against defendant railroad for injuries sustained as a result of a collision.
FACTS:
-Plaintiff passengers filed suit against defendants, a railroad and the driver of the car, as a result of injuries suffered when defendant driver collided with a train owned by defendant railroad. Although the jury found that both defendants were negligent, it concluded in a special verdict that the negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries.
-Plaintiffs asserted on appeal that the trial court erred in excluding a diagram prepared by defendant railroad's employee as hearsay and that counsel for one of the defendants was permitted to engage in improper argument regarding joint and several liability when he posited that his client would be charged with paying the entire judgment if both defendants were found liable.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the court held that the argument by defendant's counsel constituted reversible error and that it was inappropriate and an abuse of discretion for the judge to either instruct the jury or permit counsel to communicate to the jury about the post-judgment effect of joint and several liability. Furthermore, the court's exclusion of the diagram on hearsay grounds was improper, but the record was admissible under the business records exception.
RULES:
In cases involving concurrent and/or comparative negligence, the jury is asked to apportion fault only to those parties whose negligence is otherwise found to have proximately caused the injury. Importantly, the jury should not be asked to consider a defendant's individual degree of negligence until it has first considered the primary issues of the defendant's liability to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's degree of contributory negligence.
CONCLUSION: Judgment in favor of defendant railroad was reversed in an action for injuries sustained by plaintiffs as a result of a collision with a train. The court held that the trial court erred by allowing arguments regarding the post-judgment effect of joint and several liability; this constituted an abuse of discretion. The exclusion of a diagram on hearsay grounds was not justified when the record was admissible under the business records exception.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment