Thomas v. McDonald
Mississippi Supreme Court
667 So. 2d 594 (1995)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Around dusk one evening, a medium-sized flatbed commercial truck owned by DAPSCO, Inc. (defendant) and driven by McDonald (defendant) stalled on a hill, blocking the entire lane of a state highway. The truck’s engine stopped, and all of the truck’s lights stopped working. The truck had no reflectors, warning lights, or other indicators to warn oncoming drivers of the truck’s location. Shortly thereafter, a vehicle driven by McCormick (plaintiff) crashed into the rear of the truck, causing McCormick serious injuries. McCormick filed a negligence suit against the defendants. Thereafter, McCormick died of causes unrelated to his injuries, and Thomas, the administrator of McCormick’s estate, was substituted as party plaintiff. After the close of all the evidence, the trial judge refused to instruct the jury that the defendants’ failure to place warning signals on the highway was negligence per se pursuant to a state law requiring trucks that are stopped in the roadway and that cannot be immediately removed to deploy such devices. It also refused to instruct the jury that the defendants were negligent per se pursuant to a state law prohibiting trucks from operating on a highway between the hours of one half-hour after sunset and one half-hour prior to sunrise, unless the truck had reflectors, flares, or warning lights. The jury held for the defendants. Thomas appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McRae, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.