Many that have served on jury duty or that have watched a crime drama on television are aware that before a jury deliberates they are given instructions by the judge.  These instructions often are written in legalese and difficult for the jury to understand when analyzing the facts in a Mississippi personal injury lawsuit.  The jury instructions often have a critical impact on the outcome of jury deliberations.  The exact set of instructions with which the jury will be charged is typically a point of contention because of the influence of jury instructions on the verdict in a Mississippi personal injury trial.

A recent case involving a court’s instruction to the jury on the issue of comparative negligence serves as an excellent example of the important role that jury instructions pay in the outcome of a personal injury lawsuit.  In Wansley vs. Brent (Miss. App., 2011), the plaintiff challenged the instruction given in a personal injury lawsuit involving a tractor-trailer accident because the judge instructed the jury that it could find either that the plaintiff was negligent or that the defendant was negligent.  The court was persuaded by the plaintiff’s argument that the “either-or” formulation for determining the negligence of the parties confused the jury regarding its ability to find both parties shared fault.

The court also noted that this either-or formulation when combined with the trial judge’s decision not to provide a comparative fault instruction confused the jury regarding its ability to apportion fault between the plaintiff and defendant.  The statute covering apportionment of fault when there is negligence by both the plaintiff and defendant in Mississippi is Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-7-15 (Rev. 2004) which provides in pertinent part that “In all actions hereafter brought for personal injuries, . . ., the fact that the person injured, . . . may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person injured . . . .”

This principal was clarified by the Mississippi Supreme Court which held that Mississippi is a “pure comparative fault state.”  This means that if a plaintiff shares fault for causing his or her own injuries fault is apportioned between the plaintiff and defendant.  Rather than barring a Mississippi personal injury victim from all recovery for one’s injuries, this doctrine results in a reduction in recovery to the plaintiff in proportion to the fault assigned to the plaintiff.  Even if the plaintiff is found to be 95 percent at fault for causing his or her own injuries, the plaintiff can still recover five percent of the amount of damages awarded by the jury.

The failure of the trial judge to provide the jury with instructions that explained the application of comparative fault, combined with the trial judge’s “either-or” formulation for determining liability by the plaintiff and defendant, resulted in the appellate court reversing the case.  This is an example of the impact of a misleading jury instruction that confuses the jury into thinking it is limited to a determination of negligence entirely by one party as opposed to the jury’s ability to reduce the amount of the recovery but still compensate a personal injury victim based on the degree of fault by the defendant.  This confusion was manifest in a jury question directed to the judge during deliberations inquiring as to whether the jury could award a lesser dollar amount.

If you are injured in a Mississippi motor vehicle accident or by any other form of negligent conduct by a third party, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries even if you were partially at fault.  The experienced Mississippi car accident attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to car accident victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.