Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LYDA ANNETTE GILMORE v. LUTHER McGILL

JULY 30, 1986

LYDA ANNETTE GILMORE
v.
LUTHER McGILL, INC. and JAKE HOSEY



BEFORE ROY NOBLE LEE, ROBERTSON AND ANDERSON

ROY NOBLE LEE, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

Lyda Annette Gilmore filed suit against Luther McGill, Inc. and Jake Hosey in the Circuit Court of Jones County, Mississippi, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile-truck accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of McGill and Hosey and Gilmore has appealed to this Court, assigning five (5) errors in the trial below, viz:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW FULL INQUIRY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION TO ESTABLISH PRIOR INCONSISTENT

 STATEMENTS BY THE APPELLEE, JAKE HOSEY, WITH REGARD TO TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS.

 II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSAL TO ALLOW IMPEACHMENT AS TO GENERAL VERACITY OF JAKE HOSEY, APPELLEE, BY MEANS OF DAILY DRIVING LOGS.

 III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSAL TO ALLOW ADMISSION OF DRIVING LOGS AS EVIDENCE OF HABIT TO ESTABLISH CONDUCT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE HABIT OR ROUTINE PRACTICE.

 IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE INTRODUCTION OF DR. EDWIN COLE'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN REBUTTAL ON ISSUE OF APPELLANT'S TOLERANCE FOR PAIN AND TENDENCY TO EMBELLISH PAINFUL SYMPTOMS.

 V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

 On July 7, 1981, appellant was driving her automobile west on Highway 98 near Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Jake Hosey was driving a large tractor-trailer of McGill, loaded with a drilling rig motor, and was following the vehicle driven by appellant. Another truck of McGill, driven by Glen Douglas, was following the Hosey truck. Evidence for appellant and appellees is in direct conflict as to how the accident occurred.

 Appellant testified that she was driving around 45 mph and the Hosey truck, traveling at a high and unreasonable rate of speed, approached and followed closely behind her automobile for 2-1/2 to 3 miles; that she was frightened by the truck; that she came to an intersecting road, turned her blinker signal on, and, as she was pulling to the right off the road, the Hosey truck struck her vehicle in the rear, forcing her into and down the turn off road; that the trucks did not stop; and that she was able to start her car and overtake them at a store, where she took identifying information from the trucks and drove off.

 According to testimony of Hosey and Douglas, appellant would speed up her car and slow down, which required the

 trucks to slow down and made it difficult for them to regain speed with their heavy loads; that this occurred for at least 2-1/2 miles; that appellant suddenly turned off the road without blinking the turn signal, almost stopping in order to make the turn; that Hosey drove to the left and slightly struck the vehicle as it was turning off the road, the impact only pushing appellant's vehicle down such road; that they were unable to stop because of the danger involved on the winding highway and drove until they came to a rural store, where they stopped; that shortly thereafter, the appellant's vehicle came along, appellant stopped and inquired who struck her; that Hosey admitted he was the driver of the truck and wanted to call the police, but appellant said she would handle her own business without the police, and drove off.

 I.

 In a deposition given by Hosey, he was asked by appellant's attorney, how many traffic tickets he had received in the last year and he replied," Approximately one. "On the trial, he was asked how many he had received and Hosey responded," one or two. "The appellant's attorney then asked if he had not received five traffic tickets in the past three years. An objection was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.