Lamarcus Jerrell Antwon Taylor v. Latroy Darnell Johnson and Dart Transit Company

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2022-CA-00734-COA

LAMARCUS JERRELL ANTWON TAYLOR APPELLANT

v.

LATROY DARNELL JOHNSON AND DART APPELLEES
TRANSIT COMPANY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/27/2022
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ALBERT B. SMITH III
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LARRY STAMPS
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DAVID C. DUNBAR
KIM D. McCORMACK
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/30/2024
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., McDONALD AND EMFINGER, JJ.

EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. The Circuit Court of Bolivar County, Mississippi, granted the defendants Latroy

Darnell Johnson’s and Dart Transit Company’s motions for summary judgment against

Lamarcus Jerrell Antwon Taylor’s direct-liability claims and his claims for punitive damages

arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, Taylor

appealed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On June 26, 2020, Taylor was driving his 2008 Dodge Ram pick-up truck with

Christopher Crump Sr. in the front passenger seat and Crump’s sons, Christopher Crump Jr.
and Christian Crump, in the rear seats. Johnson was driving an eighteen-wheeler in the

course and scope of his employment for Dart Transit Company in a southerly direction on

U.S. Highway 61, a divided four-lane highway. As Johnson approached the intersection of

16th Section Road and Highway 61, he encountered Taylor, who was traveling from east to

west on 16th Section Road and was attempting to cross Highway 61, and the two vehicles

collided.

¶3. The information the parties submitted in support of and in opposition to the summary

judgment motions included two versions of a dashcam video of the accident taken from

Johnson’s vehicle. At the beginning of the first video, Taylor’s vehicle can be seen stopped

on 16th Section Road waiting for another vehicle going north on Highway 61 to pass in front

of his vehicle. At this point, Johnson’s vehicle is traveling south on Highway 61, in the

outside lane at “basically 65-66 miles per hour.” We do not know the exact distance between

Johnson’s vehicle and the intersection, but Johnson described it as being “close.” In the next

second, Taylor’s vehicle can be seen passing the “Stop” sign on 16th Section Road and

beginning to cross the northbound lanes of Highway 61. Taylor’s vehicle first enters the

crossover/median area between the northbound and southbound lanes at the five-second mark

of the video. At this point, Johnson’s vehicle is much closer to the intersection, but there is

no proof of the distance of his vehicle from the intersection. At the six-second mark of the

video, Taylor’s vehicle passes the “Yield” sign in the median. At the seven-second mark of

the video, Taylor’s vehicle moves from the crossover/median area and into the inside

2
southbound lane of Highway 61. At this moment, the second version of the dashcam video

shows that Johnson applied his brakes. Johnson’s vehicle is extremely close to Taylor’s

vehicle, though we do not know the exact distance. Before the video’s timer reaches the

eight-second mark, Taylor’s vehicle continues to cross Highway 61 and is struck by

Johnson’s vehicle in the outside southbound lane of travel. Christopher Crump Sr.,

Christopher Crump Jr., Christian Crump, and Taylor were all injured. Christopher Crump Jr.

died as a result of his injuries.

¶4. On December 4, 2020, Monica Davis Crump1 and Christopher Crump Sr.,

individually, sued Johnson, Dart Transit Company, and Taylor for both compensatory and

punitive damages incurred as a result of the collision.2 On February 12, 2021, Taylor filed

his answer to the complaint and a cross-claim against Johnson and Dart on February 12,

2021, also seeking compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries incurred in the

collision.

¶5. The parties went through the discovery process, and after the deadline to designate an

expert had passed, on November 17, 2021, Johnson and Dart moved for partial summary

judgment on Taylor’s direct-liability cross-claim against Dart and his punitive damages

1
Monica filed suit as the duly-appointed administratrix of the estate of Christopher
James Crump Jr., deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Christopher
James Crump Jr., including Monica Davis Crump, Christopher James Crump Sr., and
Christian Crump, a minor, by Monica Davis Crump as his duly-appointed guardian.
2
The Crump plaintiffs’ claims against Taylor, Dart, and Johnson were dismissed by
an agreed order entered on December 21, 2021.

3
cross-claim against Johnson and Dart. Taylor filed his response opposing the motion on

December 2, 2021, and Johnson and Dart filed their reply on December 3, 2021. After a

hearing on December 7, 2021, the circuit court entered an order granting partial summary

judgment in favor of Johnson and Dart on December 21, 2021. The court found Dart had

admitted that Johnson was its agent and that the accident occurred within the course and

scope of his employment; therefore, summary judgment in favor of Dart was appropriate on

Taylor’s direct-liability claims against Dart. Further, the circuit court found that Taylor had

not created a jury issue of whether Johnson’s actions were malicious or grossly negligent and

granted summary judgment in favor of Johnson and Dart as to Taylor’s claims for punitive

damages. Taylor filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal from that order

to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which was denied on March 3, 2022.3

¶6. While the petition for an interlocutory appeal was pending, Johnson and Dart filed a

motion for summary judgment as to all of Taylor’s negligence claims on February 16, 2022.

After a hearing on May 11, 2022, the trial court took the motion under advisement and

allowed both parties to submit supplemental briefs. On June 27, 2022, the trial court granted

their motion for summary judgment, finding that Taylor had failed to present evidence that

any negligence by Johnson was the proximate cause of the accident. Taylor appeals both

orders granting summary judgment in favor of Johnson and Dart.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

3
Order, No. 2022-M-00035-SCT (Miss. Mar. 3, 2022).

4
¶7. In White v. Targa Downstream LLC, 358 So. 3d 627, 632 (¶11) (Miss. 2023), the

supreme court stated:

“This Court employs a de novo standard of review when considering a trial
court’s grant or denial of summary judgment.” State ex rel. Watson v. Long
Beach Harbor Resort, LLC, 346 So. 3d 406, 409-10 (Miss. 2022) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hobson v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 179 So.
3d 1026, 1033 (Miss. 2015)). Summary judgment will be granted when “the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file,
together with affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “While evidence is viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, there must be a material fact issue to
preclude summary judgment.” Peak v. Cohee, 294 So. 3d 604, 607 (Miss.
2020) (citing Leffler v. Sharp, 891 So. 2d 152, 156 (Miss. 2004)).

ANALYSIS

¶8. We will first address the defendants’ second motion for summary judgment in which

Johnson and Dart argued that Taylor “failed to produce sufficient evidence on the issue of

causation” to support his negligence claim. To survive this motion, Taylor was required to

produce sufficient summary judgment proof to create a jury issue as to whether any

negligence by Johnson was the proximate cause of the accident and Taylor’s injuries. In Joe

McGee Construction Co. v. Brown-Bowens, 368 So. 3d 1277, 1280 (¶9) (Miss. 2023), the

supreme court explained:

“To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence each of the elements of negligence: duty,
breach, causation and injury.” Miss. Dep’t of Mental Health v. Hall, 936 So.
2d 917, 922 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Miss. Dep’t of Transp. v. Cargile, 847 So.
2d 258, 262 (Miss. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Little v. Miss. Dep’t
of Transp., 129 So. 3d 132 (Miss. 2013)). Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure
56(c) mandates summary judgment when “there are no genuine issues of

5
material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Crain v. Cleveland Lodge 1532, Order of Moose, Inc., 641 So. 2d 1186,
1188 (Miss. 1994). When “the party opposing the motion for summary
judgment on a claim or defense upon which it bears the burden of proof at
trial, and the moving party can show a complete failure of proof on an essential
element of the claim or defense, other issues become immaterial and the
moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing
Grisham v. John Q. Long V.F.W. Post, No. 4057, Inc., 519 So. 2d 413, 416
(Miss. 1988)).

¶9. As noted above, it is clear that Taylor passed through a stop sign, disobeyed a yield

sign in the crossover/median, and then pulled in front of Johnson’s oncoming vehicle

immediately prior to the collision. However, that is not the end of the discussion. In Towns

v. Panola County Board of Supervisors, 357 So. 3d 1062, 1072 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022),

this Court acknowledged:

“[T]here may be more than one proximate cause of an injury[.]” Hill v.
Columbus Ice Cream & Creamery Co., 230 Miss. 634, 642, 93 So. 2d 634, 636
(1957) (quoting Am. Creosote Works of La. v. Harp, 215 Miss. 5, 12, 60 So.
2d 514, 517 (1952)). A defendant’s negligence is considered a proximate cause
of a plaintiff’s injury if it was a “substantial factor in producing the injury”
even if it was “not . . . the sole cause of [the] injury.” T.L. Wallace Constr. Inc.
v. McArthur, Thames, Slay & Dews PLLC, 234 So. 3d 312, 330 (¶68) (Miss.
2017) (quoting Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Ernst & Young LLP, 542
F.3d 475, 485 (5th Cir. 2008)).

¶10. Taylor alleges in his brief that Johnson “failed to properly apply his brakes until

immediately prior to colliding [into] Taylor’s vehicle, that he failed to keep a proper lookout,

that he failed to reduce his speed as he approached the intersection, that he failed to yield the

right of way as Taylor entered the southbound lane of U.S. 61, and that he failed to keep the

proper speed under his control.” While he contends that no expert was required to “show that

6
Johnson caused the collision,” Taylor relied upon an expert report in opposing the summary

judgment motion before the trial court and on appeal.

¶11. Taylor did not retain his own expert but, instead, chose to rely upon the expert report

of John T. (Tim) Corbitt, who had been retained by the Crump family. In his designation of

experts, Taylor incorporated and adopted Corbitt as an expert on liability, including his

report. Corbitt’s report4 concludes:

Based on the information, evidence and data available at this time, I have made
the following conclusions and opinions regarding this collision based on a
reasonable degree of probability using scientific principles of Accident
Reconstruction.

1. The collision occurred in the right hand southbound traffic
lane of US 61 at the intersection with 16 Section Rd. The initial
impact occurred to the passenger front corner and fender area of
the Taylor-Dodge and the front of the Johnson Kenworth.

2. Mr. Lamarcus Taylor disobeyed the stop sign on 16 Section
Rd. for the northbound lanes of US 61. He then accelerated from
12 MPH to 21 MPH while crossing the northbound lanes. He
entered into the center crossover and into the southbound traffic
lanes. Mr. Taylor failed to yield the right-of-way to the
approaching southbound Johnson-Kenworth which was
traveling in the right hand traffic lane of US 61.

3. The -5 seconds recording time in the CDR report indicates
that Mr. Taylor traveled approximately 123 ft. to 125 ft. during
the recording. This would place his vehicle near the stop line for
the northbound traffic lanes and traveling 12 MPH when the
recording time begins. If Mr. Taylor had stopped, he would have
required approximately 34 ft. and approximately 2.1 seconds to

4
Apparently Corbit gave no sworn testimony, either by affidavit or deposition, and
the trial court apparently considered Corbit’s unsworn report without an objection from
either party.

7
accelerate to 12 MPH.

4. According to the Bendix video, the Taylor-Dodge is seen past
the stop sign approximately 7 seconds prior to impact and is
beginning to cross the northbound traffic lanes. The vehicle
continues moving and does not stop in the median.

5. Mr. Johnson failed to reduce his vehicle speed for the
intersection in accordance with MS Code. Mr. Johnson did not
release the cruise control until he began braking at
approximately 19:20:08 hrs. according to the PeopleNet Report.
His vehicle only lost 1 MPH in the next 2 seconds when he
began Emergency Braking at 19:20:10 hrs. At that time the
vehicle speed was approximately 62 MPH and lost
approximately 14 MPH in the next second.

6. Mr. Johnson failed to react to hazard of the Taylor-Dodge
both running the stop sign and crossing the center crossover and
then not stopping until the Dodge became an Emergency to him.

7. Mr. Johnson testifies that he observed the Taylor-Dodge
running the stop sign and at that time he decided that it was a
hazard to him. He began apply brakes when he observed this
however: the data disputes this testimony.

Taylor argues that “but for” these acts of negligence by Johnson, the collision would not have

occurred.

¶12. While Taylor was arguably negligent, Johnson may also be liable if it can be shown

that his negligence combined with Taylor’s to cause the accident. In Cornell v. Mississippi

Department of Human Services, 374 So. 3d 1217, 1223 (¶30) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), we

explained:

[A] defendant’s negligence is the cause in fact of a plaintiff’s damage when
“the act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury,
and without it the harm would not have occurred.” Davis v. Christian

8
Brotherhood Homes of Jackson, Miss. Inc., 957 So. 2d 390, 404 (¶32) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2007).

(Emphasis added). Thus, Taylor had to demonstrate, with summary judgment proof, that

Johnson’s alleged negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries. However, it is not

enough to simply show that Johnson’s actions violated the rules of the road. In Clark v.

Clark, 863 So. 2d 1027, 1032 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), this Court explained that

violating a traffic law (negligence per se) is not the equivalent of fault. “The violation must

have been a proximate cause of the accident.” Id.

¶13. Johnson argued before the trial court and on appeal that Corbitt’s report does not

“identify brake response time as a proximate cause of the crash, nor does it explain how a

different result would have occurred had Johnson applied his brakes exactly as the speed and

distances demonstrate.” In other words, there is no expert testimony to show that as Taylor

passed the stop sign, then the yield sign, and entered Johnson’s lane of travel, there was any

action Johnson could have taken to avoid the collision. There is nothing in the record about

the weight of Johnson’s vehicle or the distance needed to bring the vehicle to a complete stop

to avoid impact. There is nothing to show the distance needed to slow Johnson’s vehicle to

the point where the collision could have been avoided. There is no proof as to the amount of

time required for Johnson to see, perceive, and react to the dangerous situation created by

Taylor’s vehicle or the distance Johnson’s vehicle would have traveled during that period of

time.

¶14. In Martin ex rel. Heirs of Martin v. B & B Concrete Co., 71 So. 3d 611, 616 (¶19)

9
(Miss. Ct. App. 2011), this Court stated:

The supreme court has also held that “the motorist’s right to assume that the
driver of a vehicle proceeding toward an intersection will obey the law of the
road, which requires him to stop before entering the intersection, exists only
until he knows or in the exercise of ordinary care should know otherwise.”
[Busick v. St. John, 856 So. 2d 304, 317 (¶19) (Miss. 2003)] (quoting Jobron
v. Whatley, 250 Miss. 792, 168 So. 2d 279, 284 (1964)).

In the present case, Johnson had the right to assume Taylor would “obey the law of the road,”

that is, the yield sign that required Taylor to stop in the crossover/median until Johnson

passed by. According to the video evidence, less than three seconds elapsed between the time

Taylor entered the crossover/median area and the time of the collision. Given this unique

factual scenario, expert testimony or other evidence was needed to determine whether, within

the time and distance available, Johnson could have taken any action that would have

avoided the collision.

¶15. In Rogers v. Barlow Eddy Jenkins P.A., 22 So. 3d 1219, 1225 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App.

2009), we stated:

[A]lthough Davis correctly points out that the issue of proximate cause is
generally an issue for a jury to decide, this fact does not change the
requirement that, to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the
non-moving party must present evidence that would allow a jury to find that
the breach proximately caused the injury at issue. [Davis v. Christian
Brotherhood Homes of Jackson, Mississippi, Inc., 957 So. 2d 390,] 410 (¶48)
[(Miss. Ct. App. 2007)].

Likewise, in the present case, to avoid summary judgment, Taylor had to produce sufficient

summary judgment proof to show that a genuine issue of fact existed for the jury to decide

whether Johnson’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and Taylor’s injuries.

10
We find that neither Corbitt’s expert report nor any other evidence Taylor produced was

sufficient to meet this burden. The circuit court did not err by granting summary judgment.

¶16. As for the first order granting summary judgment as to Taylor’s direct-liability claims

against Dart, partial summary judgment was appropriate because Dart had admitted that

Johnson was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Dart. See Carothers

v. City of Water Valley, 242 So. 3d 138, 144-45 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). As for the grant

of summary judgment as to Taylor’s punitive damage claims against Johnson and Dart, we

affirm summary judgment because Taylor’s underlying negligence claims fail as a matter of

law, so the issue of punitive damages is now moot. See Elmore v. Dixie Pipeline Co., 245 So.

3d 500, 510 (¶49) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).

CONCLUSION

¶17. Based upon our de novo review of the record, we find that the trial court did not err

by granting summary judgment.

¶18. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, LAWRENCE,
McCARTY AND SMITH, JJ., CONCUR. McDONALD, J., CONCURS IN RESULT
ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. WESTBROOKS, J.,
DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

11