Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ladner v. Holleman

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided June 19, 2012No. 2010-CA-01932-COAPublished

1DissentRussell, J.

¶ 18. The majority finds that Ladner failed to provide any evidence establishing a negligent act by Holleman that proximately caused Ladner’s injuries. In my view, Holleman was the proximate cause of Ladner’s injuries because (1) he applied the Neosporin ointment to Ladner’s skin, and (2) he failed to call an ambulance despite several requests by Ladner. At a minimum, there are genuine issues of material fact as to Holleman’s duty, whether his actions or inactions were negligent, and whether Ladner’s injuries were the result of Holleman’s actions or inactions. Therefore, I would reverse the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Donald v. Amoco Production Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Palmer v. Anderson Infirmary Benevolent Ass'nMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Lawson v. Honeywell International, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Monsanto Co. v. HallMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Rein v. Benchmark Const. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2004

10 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