Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mine Safety Appliance Co. v. Holmes

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 2015No. 2014-CA-00009-SCTPublished

1DissentKitchens, Justice

¶ 65. The majority reverses and renders the present case for two reasons. First, the majority finds that the trial court erred by denying Mine Safety Appliance Company’s.(MSA’s) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on Huey Holmes’s failure-to-warn claims, because Holmes had made an inadequate-warnings claim, as opposed to a claim for lack of any warnings. Second, the majority holds that the trial court erred by denying MSA’s motion for JNOV on Holmes’s design-defect claim, which it found to have been obviated by Holmes’s testimony at trial that he never changed the filter in…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  2. Sperry-New Holland v. PrestageMississippi Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Ford Motor Company v. MatthewsMississippi Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Early-Gary, Inc. v. WaltersMississippi Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Tombigbee Electric Power Ass'n v. GandyMississippi Supreme Court · 1953

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API