Thomas v. McDonald
667 So. 2d 594 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The failure to equip a commercial vehicle with statutorily required warning devices constitutes negligence per se, and the defense that the driver lacked a 'reasonable time' to deploy such devices is unavailable when compliance with the statute was impossible from the outset.
Facts:
- A 'gang truck' owned by DAPSCO, Inc. had been experiencing mechanical problems for a week prior to the incident.
- On March 7, 1990, a DAPSCO employee, William McDonald, was driving the truck when it stalled on a hill on Highway 528 around 6:30 p.m. as it was getting dark.
- The stalled truck's engine and lights went out, and it completely blocked the eastbound lane of traffic.
- The DAPSCO truck was not equipped with any flares, reflectors, or other warning devices as required by Mississippi statute.
- McDonald did not place any warnings on the highway to alert oncoming traffic of the disabled vehicle.
- Sam McCormick, driving his pick-up truck, collided with the rear of the unlit, stalled DAPSCO truck, sustaining injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Sam McCormick filed a negligence action against William McDonald and DAPSCO, Inc. in the Jasper County Circuit Court (trial court).
- Following McCormick's death from unrelated causes, Mary Thomas, the administratrix of his estate, was substituted as the plaintiff.
- At trial, the court refused the plaintiff's proposed jury instruction stating that the defendants' failure to place warning signals was negligence per se.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, McDonald and DAPSCO.
- The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
- The plaintiff, Thomas, perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a commercial vehicle owner's failure to equip its truck with statutorily mandated warning devices, and the driver's subsequent failure to display them when the truck stalled on a highway, constitute negligence per se?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McRae
Yes. The failure to carry and display statutory warning devices for a commercial truck stalled on a highway constitutes negligence per se. The violation of a safety statute is negligence as a matter of law when the plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect and the harm suffered is of the type the statute was intended to prevent. Here, the statute requiring warning devices was enacted to protect motorists like Sam McCormick from collisions with disabled vehicles. While precedent has established that a driver has a 'reasonable time' to place warning devices, that defense is predicated on the vehicle actually being equipped with them. Because the DAPSCO truck had no warning devices, it was impossible for the driver to comply with the law, rendering the 'reasonable time' defense inapplicable. Therefore, the defendants' failure to equip the truck with the required devices was negligence per se, and the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury accordingly.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the negligence per se doctrine for violations of specific safety statutes in Mississippi. It clarifies that excuses for non-compliance, such as a lack of time, are unavailable when a party makes compliance impossible from the start by failing to have the required equipment. This places a strict, non-delegable duty on commercial vehicle owners to equip their fleets with all legally mandated safety devices. The ruling effectively removes a question of fact (the reasonableness of the driver's actions) from the jury's consideration when the predicate statutory duty to carry the equipment has been breached.
Unlock the full brief for Thomas v. McDonald