Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Denman v. Spain

Supreme Court of Mississippi · 1961 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedurenew trialweight of evidencethirteenth jurorjury verdictjudgment notwithstanding the verdictJNOVproximate cause

Facts

On a rainy, foggy evening, a Ford driven south by Mrs. Eva B. Denman collided with a northbound Plymouth driven by Joseph A. Ross; Ross and another passenger died, and the plaintiff child passenger was injured. The plaintiff presented no eyewitness who could explain how the collision occurred, and there was no proof of skid marks, point of impact, or which vehicle crossed the center line. One witness's testimony about Ross's speed three-fourths of a mile before the crash was inadmissible, but another witness testified that Ross passed him about two hundred yards before the collision at seventy-five to eighty miles per hour and continued straight in his proper lane without slowing. The wrecked vehicles and photographs did not provide a reasonable explanation of how or why the accident happened.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict by showing not only negligence by Ross, but also that his negligence proximately caused or contributed to the collision. More specifically, the question was whether evidence of Ross's excessive speed, without evidence explaining how the collision occurred, permitted the case to go to judgment on the verdict.

Rule

To recover, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence both that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence proximately caused or contributed to the injury. A verdict cannot be based on speculation, conjecture, or mere possibilities. Evidence of speed observed too remote from the accident is inadmissible, but speed evidence close enough in time and distance to support an inference of continued speed is admissible; impeachment affects credibility, not admissibility.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On a foggy evening outside Jackson, Mississippi, Nora Ellis was injured while riding in a sedan that collided head-on with a truck driven by Caleb Monroe. A motorist testified that Monroe passed him 150 yards before the crash at about 78 mph and continued straight in his own lane, but no one could identify the point of impact or say which vehicle crossed the center line.

If Nora sues Monroe and rests on that evidence alone, which is the strongest argument for judgment notwithstanding a plaintiff's verdict?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a plaintiff must prove both negligence and proximate causation by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence that the defendant was speeding may establish negligence, but if the record does not show how the collision occurred—such as the point of impact or whether the other vehicle entered the defendant's path—causation remains speculation. A verdict cannot rest on mere possibilities.