Facts
- A minor passenger sought damages for injuries from a head-on collision on U.S. Highway 49E near Sumner, Mississippi, during rainy, foggy, dusk conditions.
- The passenger rode in a southbound Ford driven by her grandmother; a northbound Plymouth was driven by Joseph A. Ross, later deceased.
- The collision killed both drivers and one of Ross’s passengers; the minor passenger and another passenger survived but had no memory of the impact.
- The plaintiff introduced photographs of the damaged vehicles and testimony describing weather and visibility.
- A motorist testified Ross’s car passed him at a high rate of speed and, in admissible form, that it continued at about 75–80 mph without slowing for roughly 200 yards up to the collision.
- No witness testified to the point of impact, lane location of either vehicle at impact, or that Ross crossed the center line; there was no reliable physical evidence fixing fault to one side of the road.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff presented substantial evidence that Ross was negligent and that such negligence proximately caused or contributed to the collision and the passenger’s injuries.
- Whether testimony about Ross’s speed before the collision was admissible and, if admitted, whether it supplied probative evidence of proximate cause.
Decision
- The trial court set aside a $5,000 plaintiff’s verdict and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for the defendant executrix.
- The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the JNOV.
- The court held that, even crediting admissible evidence that Ross drove at a very high speed shortly before impact, the plaintiff failed to prove that Ross’s conduct proximately caused or contributed to the collision.
- The court concluded the record left causation to conjecture because the evidence did not establish where on the roadway the collision occurred or which vehicle, if either, crossed the center line.
Legal Principles
- A passenger-plaintiff must prove both negligence and that the negligence proximately caused or contributed to the collision and resulting damages.
- A verdict cannot rest on possibilities or speculation; liability requires substantial evidence supporting a reasonable inference of causation.
- Speed evidence is inadmissible when too remote from the collision and the witness cannot account for the vehicle’s operation thereafter.
- Speed evidence may be admissible when the witness continuously observes the vehicle for a short distance up to the collision, but admissibility does not eliminate the need for proof connecting speed to the mechanism of the crash.
- JNOV is proper when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the verdict winner, the proof still fails as a matter of law to establish an essential element such as proximate cause.
Conclusion
Because the plaintiff could not show the point of impact or otherwise connect Ross’s high speed to how the collision occurred, the evidence supported only speculation as to causation; therefore, the JNOV for the defendant was properly affirmed.