Cloyd Garth Jr. v. Rapid Oil Change Inc.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2025-CA-00148-COA

CLOYD GARTH JR. APPELLANT

v.

RAPID OIL CHANGE INC. APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2024
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. TOMIKA HARRIS IRVING
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CARROLL RHODES
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JASON HOOD STRONG
THOMAS RAY JULIAN
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/05/2026
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.

CARLTON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Cloyd Garth Jr. filed suit in the Copiah County Circuit Court against Rapid Oil

Change Inc. after a tire on Garth’s vehicle came off while he was driving on the highway,

resulting in a single-car accident. Garth alleged that Rapid Oil Change was negligent in

failing to adequately tighten the lug nuts on the wheel of Garth’s vehicle after a tire rotation,

and this negligence proximately caused the accident that injured Garth and damaged his

vehicle.

¶2. Rapid Oil Change did not contest liability, and a trial was held on the issues of

causation and damages. The jury returned a verdict awarding Garth $2,500 in economic

damages and $2,500 in non-economic damages. Garth filed a motion for an additur, to alter
or amend the judgment, or, in the alternative, for a new trial on damages only.1 The trial

court denied Garth’s motion, and he appealed.

¶3. On appeal, Garth argues that the trial court erred in granting Rapid Oil Change’s

motion in limine, preventing Garth from testifying that he was a preacher. Garth also asserts

that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Garth’s motion for an additur or, in the

alternative, for a new trial.

¶4. After our review, we find no error; we therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.

FACTS

¶5. In May 2019, Garth took his vehicle to Rapid Oil Change in Hazlehurst, Mississippi,

to have the oil changed and tires rotated. After Rapid Oil Change completed these services,

Garth drove his vehicle back to the Hazlehurst City School District, where he was employed

as the superintendent. As Garth drove down the highway, his vehicle started shaking.

Suddenly, the front tire on the driver’s side of Garth’s vehicle came off, and the front of the

vehicle dropped to the ground. Garth claimed that the violent jerking and shaking of the

vehicle as the tire fell off caused severe pain to Garth’s lower back and neck.

¶6. In December 2020, Garth filed a complaint against Rapid Oil Change asserting claims

of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Garth

claimed that he was entitled to $168,532 in damages, including $7,825.50 in medical bills

for treatment related to injuries he suffered in the accident, and $18,532 for the value of his

1
On appeal, Garth only addresses the trial court’s denial of an additur and a new trial
on the issue of damages. Accordingly, we will refer to this post-trial motion as “a motion
for additur or, in the alternative, a new trial.”

2
vehicle that was destroyed in the accident.

¶7. Garth eventually filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability alone.

Rapid Oil Change did not oppose the motion and admitted that its employee was negligent

in failing to adequately tighten the lug nuts on the wheel of Garth’s vehicle. The trial court

accordingly entered an agreed order granting summary judgment on liability alone. The trial

court then set a trial date on “the issues of causation and compensatory damages, if any,

sustained by [Garth].”

¶8. Rapid Oil Change filed a motion in limine in November 2024, requesting, in part, that

the trial court prevent Garth from testifying “that he preaches at a church on weekends in the

Aberdeen, Mississippi area.” Rapid Oil Change argued that Garth’s status as a part-time

minister is not relevant to “whether, and to what extent, [Garth] was injured in the subject

incident and sustained damages.” Garth responded and argued that his testimony regarding

how the accident affected his ability to perform physical tasks in his role as a minister is

relevant and admissible. The trial court granted Rapid Oil Change’s motion in limine as to

this issue and excluded Garth from testifying that he is a minister.

¶9. At trial, the jury heard testimony from Garth; Dr. Billie King, a chiropractor who

treated Garth after the accident; Andre Watson, Garth’s coworker at the Hazlehurst City

School District; Officer Reginald Robinson of the Hazlehurst Police Department, the officer

who responded to the accident; and Dr. Eric Amundson, an expert in the field of

neurosurgery.2 The trial court admitted into evidence Garth’s medical records, medical bills,

2
Dr. Amundson testified by video deposition.

3
chiropractic records, chiropractic bills, and massage therapy bills. The total bill for Garth’s

chiropractic treatment from Dr. King was approximately $2,748; the total bill for Garth’s

massage therapy was approximately $3,477.50; and the total bill from the services and CT

scan from Copiah Medical Associates was approximately $1,600.

¶10. Garth testified that on the day of the accident, he picked up his vehicle from Rapid Oil

Change and intended to drive back to work. Garth recalled that as he was driving down the

highway, his vehicle began to shake. After Garth turned around and began driving back to

Rapid Oil Change, the front driver’s side tire suddenly fell off, and the front end of the

vehicle dropped to the ground. Garth tried to control the vehicle and steer it to the shoulder

of the road. Garth testified that prior to his tire falling off, he was driving approximately 30-

45 miles per hour.

¶11. Garth explained that the shaking and the jerking of the vehicle as it hit the ground

caused injuries to his neck, arm, and lower back. Garth admitted that he did not seek medical

treatment on the same day as the accident because he had to attend a sports awards banquet

at the high school in Hazlehurst. However, Garth explained that the pain progressively

worsened, and he eventually sought treatment at a medical clinic a week later.

¶12. Watson, Garth’s coworker, testified that Garth called him after the accident and asked

Watson to come pick him up. Watson drove to Garth’s location and observed Garth’s vehicle

stopped on the highway with the wheel off. Watson described Garth as shaken up and upset.

Watson also testified that he observed Garth “stumble” as he walked.

¶13. Officer Robinson responded to the dispatch call regarding Garth’s accident. Officer

4
Robinson testified that at the scene Garth told him that he was not injured.

¶14. Garth went to Copiah Medical Associates on May 24, 2019, a week after the accident,

complaining of pain in his middle and lower back. Garth underwent a CT scan of his lumbar

spine, which revealed that Garth’s alignment appeared anatomical, with no fractures,

dislocations, or any significant acute abnormalities.

¶15. When Garth’s pain did not subside, he went to Dr. Billie King, a chiropractor, on

November 18, 2019. At his first appointment with Dr. King, Garth reported experiencing

pain in his lumbar spine and neck. Garth rated his back and neck pain as an eight on a scale

of one to ten.

¶16. Dr. King testified that she first treated Garth on November 18, 2019, six months after

the accident at issue. Dr. King treated Garth for approximately two months; his last

appointment with Dr. King was on January 23, 2020. Dr. King testified that she evaluated

Garth and performed various orthopedic and neurological tests to assess Garth’s condition.

Dr. King testified that the test results showed that Garth “had extensive trauma to his spine

where his spine was out of alignment[,]” specifically in his neck and lower back. Dr. King

opined that this finding correlates with the injuries Garth complained of after his accident.

Dr. King adjusted Garth’s spine and ordered several months of chiropractic adjustments. Dr.

King also opined that based upon a reasonable degree of chiropractic probability, Garth was

injured in the May 2019 accident at issue.

¶17. Rapid Oil Change called Dr. Amundson to testify as an expert in the field of

neurosurgery. Dr. Amundson testified that he performed an independent medical

5
examination of Garth. During the examination, Garth complained of pain in his low back,

neck, upper right extremity, and both lower extremities. Dr. Amundson testified that after

examining Garth, he found no objective exam findings to support Garth’s complaints of neck

pain. Dr. Amundson explained that his examination of Garth revealed that Garth had a

normal range of motion in his neck, which were “normal exam findings.” As for Garth’s

complaint of lower back pain, Dr. Amundson testified that he found “no objective exam

findings that would support his complaints.”

¶18. Dr. Amundson also reviewed Garth’s chiropractic and medical records, including his

CT scan results. Dr. Amundson testified that he found inconsistencies in Dr. King’s

chiropractic notes and the information that Garth provided to Dr. Amundson during his

examination regarding the details of the accident and the onset of Garth’s pain. Dr.

Amundson further testified that Garth’s CT scan demonstrated no abnormalities, fractures,

or anything else that would support Garth’s complaint of pain.

¶19. After examining Garth and reviewing his medical and chiropractic records, Dr.

Amundson found nothing, from an objective standpoint, that demonstrated Garth suffered

any injuries in the May 2019 accident. Dr. Amundson testified that in his professional

opinion, based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, Garth did not sustain an injury

to his neck or low back as a result of the May 2019 accident.

¶20. The jury also heard testimony about how Garth’s pain currently affects his life. Garth

testified that his pain negatively affects his work and his sleep, explaining that as a result of

the pain and discomfort, he is able to sleep only about three hours a night. Garth testified

6
that his chiropractic treatments from Dr. King helped his pain. However, Garth stated that

he could not continue to attend his chiropractic appointments because they conflicted with

his work schedule. Garth testified that he performs the prescribed home exercises and also

gets massages, which help with the pain.

¶21. During closing argument, Garth asked the jury to award him a total of $7,725 in

economic damages and $150,000 in non-economic damages. Rapid Oil Change’s counsel

argued that if the jury found Garth sustained injuries in the accident, then the jury should

award him damages only for the medical expenses Garth incurred within six weeks of the

accident. Rapid Oil Change’s counsel suggested that a reasonable award of damages would

be $2,000 in economic damages and $3,000 in non-economic damages.

¶22. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict

awarding Garth $2,500 in non-economic damages and $2,500 in economic damages. The

trial court then entered a final judgment in favor of Garth “in the total amount of [$5,000].”

¶23. Garth filed a motion for an additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial.3 The trial

court entered an order denying Garth’s motion after finding that the jury’s verdict awarding

damages was not influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion and that the amount of damages

was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence. The trial court

3
In his post-trial motion, Garth asserted the evidence at trial showed that he “incurred
and paid” $4,348 in past medical and chiropractic bills, and he was expected to incur an
additional $2,264 in future chiropractic bills, for a total of $6,612 in medical and
chiropractic bills. Garth also stated that he spent $2,782 in massage therapy bills. Garth
submitted that the total amount of past and future medical, chiropractic, and related bills
amounts to $9,394. However, in his appellant’s brief, Garth recalculates the total amount
as $9,392.

7
explained that Rapid Oil Change “presented testimony and evidence to refute the necessity

and reasonableness of [Garth’s] medical treatment, chiropractic treatment, massage

treatment” and the related expenses.

¶24. After the denial of Garth’s post-trial motion, this appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion in Limine

¶25. Garth first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Rapid Oil

Change’s motion in limine to exclude Garth from testifying that he works part-time as a

minister. Garth maintains that this testimony was relevant to show how the injuries he

suffered in the accident affected his job as a minister.

¶26. We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion.

Moore v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 387 So. 3d 1019, 1024 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App.

2023). In reviewing a trial court’s grant of a motion in limine, we will find no abuse of

discretion “if the court determines that (1) the material or evidence in question will be

inadmissible at trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or

statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury.” Ware

v. Entergy Miss. Inc., 887 So. 2d 763, 766 (¶6) (Miss. 2003). This Court will only reverse

a trial court’s exclusion of evidence where the ruling “result[s] in prejudice and harm[s] or

adversely affect[s] a party’s substantial right.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Kirby, 156

So. 3d 281, 298 (¶41) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

¶27. At the time of the accident, Garth was employed as the superintendent of the

8
Hazlehurst City School District. At his deposition, Garth testified that he also preached at

a church in West Point on the weekends. Rapid Oil Change filed a motion in limine seeking,

in part, to prevent Garth from testifying at trial that he worked as a part-time minister. Rapid

Oil Change asserted that Garth’s position as a part-time minister was not relevant to the

issues being tried and was also inadmissible under the balancing test of Mississippi Rule of

Evidence 403. Garth opposed the motion and argued that his testimony was relevant to show

how his injuries affected his ability to perform his jobs and his loss of enjoyment of life.

¶28. The trial court entered an order granting the motion as to Garth’s testimony that he

was a minister. The trial court cited Mississippi Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 and

determined that Garth’s testimony was not relevant to the issues on trial (causation and any

compensatory damages) because Garth’s position as a minister would not “make a fact more

or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” and it is not “of consequence in

determining the case.” The trial court accordingly held that Garth would not be permitted

to testify that he was a minister. See MRE 402 (“Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.”).

The trial court clarified, however, that Garth “may testify regarding how the injuries have

affected his life, including driving.”

¶29. Rule 401 defines evidence as “relevant” when “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of

consequence in determining the case.” MRE 401. We recognize that “[t]he trial court enjoys

substantial deference when determining matters of relevance.” Hughes v. State, 735 So. 2d

238, 274 (¶164) (Miss. 1999). As stated, we will only reverse a trial court’s exclusion of

9
evidence where the ruling “result[s] in prejudice and harm[s] or adversely affect[s] a party’s

substantial right.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 156 So. 3d at 298 (¶41).

¶30. In his complaint, Garth claimed that he was entitled to $168,532 in damages, which

included damages for “past, present and future physical pain, emotional distress,

embarrassment and humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life[.]” Garth argues his testimony

that he was a minister was relevant to show how his injuries affected his ability to perform

his jobs and his loss of enjoyment of life. We agree that this testimony was relevant to

Garth’s claim for damages for loss of enjoyment of life. Evidence regarding a plaintiff’s

daily life activities is relevant to his claim for damages for loss of enjoyment of life. Clark

v. Deakle, 800 So. 2d 1227, 1232 (¶¶19-20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). The trial court therefore

erred in excluding Garth’s testimony that he was a minister.

¶31. However, based on the facts of the case before us, we find that this error was

harmless. See Rogers v. Thames, 309 So. 3d 1154, 1161 (¶¶15-16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).

As stated, the trial court clarified in its order that while Garth could not expressly state that

he was a minister, he could still testify as to how his injuries affected his life. Accordingly,

we do not find that the trial court’s exclusion of Garth’s testimony that he was a minister

resulted in any prejudice or harm to Garth, or adversely affected his substantial right. We

therefore find no reversible error in the trial court’s grant of Rapid Oil Change’s motion in

limine.

II. Motion for an Additur or a New Trial on Damages Only

¶32. Garth next argues that the jury’s verdict awarding him $2,500 in economic damages

10
and $2,500 in non-economic damages was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the

credible evidence. Garth also asserts that the jury’s verdict was influenced by bias, prejudice,

or passion.4 Garth therefore argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his

motion for an additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on damages.

¶33. The Mississippi Supreme Court has explained that “[a]ny party aggrieved by the

amount of damages awarded pursuant to a jury verdict may file a motion for an additur or

remittitur.” Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry Inc., 947 So. 2d 900, 908 (¶16) (Miss. 2007).

Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-1-55 (Rev. 2019), a trial judge has the

authority to grant an additur “if the court finds that the damages are excessive or inadequate

for the reason that the jury or trier of the facts was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion,

or that the damages awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible

evidence.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-55. Garth, as the party seeking the additur, bears the

burden of proving his injuries and damages. Quinn v. President Broadwater Hotel LLC, 963

So. 2d 1204, 1206 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). “In determining whether this burden is met,

this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, giving that

party all favorable inferences that reasonably may be drawn therefrom.” Id. (quoting

Rodgers v. Pascagoula Public School Dist., 611 So. 2d 942, 945 (Miss. 1992)). We

recognize that “[a]wards fixed by jury determination are not merely advisory and will not

4
In his appellant’s brief, Garth asserts that Rapid Oil Change’s counsel “belittled”
Dr. King at trial by referring to her as “Ms. King,” and he claims that this belittlement
affected how the jurors viewed the testimony of Dr. King, chiropractor, compared to Dr.
Amundson, a neurosurgeon. However, Garth did not raise this argument before the trial
court; therefore, we will not address it for the first time on appeal. Anderson v. LaVere, 136
So. 3d 404, 410 (¶27) (Miss. 2014).

11
under the general rule be set aside unless so unreasonable in amount as to strike mankind at

first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous.” Stockett

v. Classic Manor Builders Inc., 226 So. 3d 620, 624 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting

Rodgers, 611 So. 2d at 945).

¶34. We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for an additur for an abuse of discretion.

Rhodes v. Raffeo, 74 So. 3d 915, 917 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “Similarly, a motion for

a new trial challenges the weight of the evidence and is reviewed under the

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 917-18 (¶8). “As such, we give substantial weight,

deference, and respect to the decision of the trial judge.” Stockett, 226 So. 3d at 625 (¶20)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

¶35. As stated, Rapid Oil Change admitted liability, and the only questions for the jury

were causation and damages, if any. Our review of the testimony and evidence shows that

Garth and Rapid Oil Change presented conflicting evidence on the causation of Garth’s

injuries as well as the amount of damages. “When evidence is in conflict, the jury is the sole

judge of both the credibility of a witness and the weight of his testimony.” Walker v. Gann,

955 So. 2d 920, 934 (¶47) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). At trial, Garth testified that he sustained

injuries to his lower back and neck as a result of the accident. However, Officer Robinson

testified that when he arrived at the scene of the accident, Garth told him that he was not

injured. Garth also testified that he went to a school event after the accident and that he did

not seek medical attention until approximately a week later. Garth’s medical, chiropractic,

and massage therapy records were admitted into evidence for the jury to review. Dr. King,

12
who evaluated Garth and provided chiropractic treatment to him for approximately two

months, testified that based upon a reasonable degree of chiropractic probability, Garth was

injured in the May 2019 accident at issue. Dr. Amundson, a neurosurgeon, also examined

and evaluated Garth and reviewed his medical and chiropractic records. Dr. Amundson

testified that he found no objective examination findings to support Garth’s complaints of

neck and back pain, and he opined, based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, that

Garth did not sustain an injury to his neck or low back as a result of the May 2019 accident.

After considering the evidence and testimony, the jury concluded that Garth was entitled to

$2,500 in economic damages and $2,500 in non-economic damages, amounting to $5,000

in total damages.

¶36. In his motion for an additur or, in the alternative, a new trial, Garth argued that the

jury’s verdict awarding him economic and non-economic damages showed that the jury

found in favor of Garth, including that the accident was the proximate cause of Garth’s

injuries and damages. Garth submitted that the evidence and testimony showed that he was

entitled to approximately $9,394 in non-economic damages; therefore, he argues the jury’s

award of damages in a lesser amount was so grossly inadequate and against the

overwhelming weight of the evidence as to evidence bias, passion, and prejudice by the jury.

¶37. However, the trial transcript reflects that during closing argument, Rapid Oil Change

admitted that at most, it was only liable for the medical bills Garth incurred within six weeks

of the accident, which was $1,600 from Copiah Medical Associates. Rapid Oil Change

accordingly suggested that an award of $2,000 in economic damages and $3,000 in

13
non-economic damages—for a total of $5,000—would be reasonable. The jury returned a

verdict awarding Garth a total of $5,000 in damages.

¶38. After reviewing the evidence and testimony, we find that the jury could have

reasonably inferred that Garth’s chiropractic and massage therapy bills were not related to

the May 2019 accident, and therefore the jury awarded Garth damages only for the medical

bills he incurred from Copiah Medical Associates, as well as for pain and suffering during

that time. “As the fact-finder, the jury in this case was entitled to believe whomever it found

to be most credible.” Walker, 955 So. 2d at 934 (¶47). Additionally, “it is the primary

province of the jury to determine the amount of damages to award.” Teasley v. Buford, 876

So. 2d 1070, 1075 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

¶39. When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rapid Oil Change, we find

that the record contains substantial and credible evidence to support the jury’s verdict and

that the jury’s verdict is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We also find

that the jury’s award of damages does not indicate bias, prejudice, or passion on the part of

the jury. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garth’s motion

for an additur or, in the alternative, a new trial.

CONCLUSION

¶40. For the reasons set forth above, we find that the trial court erred in granting Rapid Oil

Change’s motion in limine; however, based on the facts of this case, such error was harmless.

We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garth’s motion for

an additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial. We therefore affirm the trial court’s

14
judgment.

¶41. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., WILSON, P.J., LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER,
WEDDLE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR. WESTBROOKS, J., DISSENTS
WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. McDONALD, J., NOT
PARTICIPATING.

15