Mississippi Valley Silica Co. v. Eastman
Mississippi Supreme Court
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
- Young v. GuildMississippi Supreme Court · 2009
- DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- Blake v. CleinMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
- Utz v. Running & Rolling Trucking, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2010
- Investor Resource Services, Inc. v. CatoMississippi Supreme Court · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.