Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mississippi Valley Silica Co. v. Eastman

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 2012No. 2010-CA-00924-SCTPublished

1DissentChandler, Justice

¶40. The majority rewards MVS’ failure to discern the applicable law in Mississippi and to tender a jury instruction correctly stating that law. In accordance with long-established precedent governing jury instructions in civil cases, I would find that MVS’ failure to tender a proper jury instruction is fatal to its argument. I respectfully dissent.

¶ 41. The sophisticated-user instruction proffered by MVS stated:

If the purchaser of silica [LeTour-neau] knew or should have known the dangers that may be associated with silica, then the purchaser is a sophisticated user, and a supplier [MVS] has…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Young v. GuildMississippi Supreme Court · 2009
  2. DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Blake v. CleinMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Utz v. Running & Rolling Trucking, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Investor Resource Services, Inc. v. CatoMississippi Supreme Court · 2009

4 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