ΒΆ26. The Estate of Stewart Court cited Donald v. Amoco Production Co., 735 So. 2d 161 (Miss. 1999), Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234 (1938), and Smith v. United States, 284 F. Supp. 259 (S.D. Miss. 1967), affβd per curiam, 394 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1968). As will be more fully developed below, the cases informed the Estate of Stewart Courtβs statement "that the question of foreseeability is different from the question of causation."
The method used in the particular situation in no wise constituted negligence. Gulf Refining Co. v. Ferrell, 165 Miss. 296, 147 So. 476; Hammontree v. Cobb Construction Co., 168 Miss. 844, 851-852, 854, 152 So. 279; Mauney v. Gulf Refining Co., 193 Miss. 421, 427-431, 9 So.2d 780; Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234; Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Bloodworth, 166 Miss. 602, 145 So. 333; Brown v. Coley, 168 Miss. 778, 782, 784-786, 152 So. 61; Dobbins v. Lookout Oil Refining Co., 133 Miss. 248, 251, 97 So. 546; 39 C.J., Sec. 612, p. 499, Sec. 613. The plaintiff assumed the risk incident to the particular work and circumstances.
6 Miss. 460, 148 So. 219; Illinois Central RR. Co. v. Bloodworth, 166 Miss. 602, 145 So. 333, 336; Tyson v. Utterback, 154 Miss. 381, 122 So. 496, 498; D'Antoni v. Albritton, 156 Miss. 758, 766, 126 So. 836; 45 C.J. 913, 918; Williams v. Lumpkin, 169 Miss. 146, 152 So. 842; Columbus G.R. Co. v. Coleman, 172 Miss. 514, 160 So. 277; New Orleans N.E.R. Co. v. Holsomback, 168 Miss. 493, 495, 151 So. 720; Berryhill v. Nichols, 171 Miss. 769, 158 So. 470, 471; Jabron v. State, 172 Miss. 135, 159 So. 406; Daniel v. Jackson Infirmary, 173 Miss. 832, 163 So. 447; Supreme Instruments Corp. v. Lehr, 190 Miss. 600, 199 So. 294; City of Greenville v. Laury, 172 Miss. 118, 159 So. 121, 122; Meridian Grain Elevator Co. v. Jones, 176 Miss. 764, 169 So. 771; Newell Contracting Co. v. Flynt, 172 Miss. 719, 729, 161 So. 298, 743; Pastrick v. S.S. Kresge Co., 288 Mass. 194, 192 N.E. 485; Boyle v. Preketes, 262 Mich. 629, 247 N.W. 763, 765; Daniel v. Jackson Infirmary, 173 Miss. 832, 163 So. 447, 449; Gulf Ref. Co. v. Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234; Blizzard v. Fitzsimmons, 193 Miss. 484, 10 So.2d 343; Ming v. City of Jackson, 202 Miss. 260, 31 So.2d 900; Peck v. Yale Amusement Co., 195 S.W. 1033; Berberet v. Electric Park Amusement Co., 3 S.W.2d 1025; Hunker v. Warner Bros. Theatres, 177 S.E. 629, (W. Va.); Richard-Lightman Theatre Corp. v. Vick, (Ark.), 147 S.W.2d 731. It has been held that one who steps where he is unable to see is negligent as a matter of law, or, as sometimes said, he assumes the risk.
This Court has expressly rejected the argument that there is no negligence because the injury rarely occurs, or never before occurred. Gulf Ref. Co. v. Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234, 235 (1938) (citing Crawford v. City of Meridian, 174 Miss. 875, 165 So. 612 (1936)). With regard to foreseeability, the "inquiry is not whether the thing is to be foreseen or anticipated as one which will probably happen, . . . but whether it is likely to happen, even though the likelihood may not be sufficient to amount to a comparative probability."
This Court has expressly rejected the argument that there is no negligence because the injury rarely occurs, or never before occurred. Gulf Ref. Co. v. Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234, 235 (1938) (citing Crawford v. City of Meridian, 174 Miss. 875, 165 So. 612 (1936) ). With regard to foreseeability, the "inquiry is not whether the thing is to be foreseen or anticipated as one which will probably happen, ... but whether it is likely to happen, even though the likelihood may not be sufficient to amount to a comparative probability." Williams, 185 So. at 236.
Id. at 713, Smith v. United States, 284 F.Supp. 259 (S.D.Miss. 1967) (citing Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So.2d 161 (Miss. 1999); Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234 (1938)). ΒΆ 35.
Id. at 713, Smith v. United States, 284 F. Supp 259 (S.D. Miss. 1967)) (citing Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161 (Miss. 1999); Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234 (1938)). ΒΆ The plaintiff's expert testified that the fall could have caused the stroke, and the stroke, in turn, caused the lady to suffer pneumonia and urinary tract infections.
Two such cases are Donald v. Amoco Production Co., 735 So.2d 161 (Miss. 1999), and Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234 (1938). Another case decided by a United States District Court is Smith v. United States, 284 F.Supp. 259 (S.D.Miss. 1967), aff'd per curiam, 394 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1968).
This Court has expressly rejected the argument that there is no negligence because the injury rarely occurs, or never before occurred. Gulf Ref. Co. v. Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234, 235 (1936) (citing Crawford v. City of Meridian, 174 Miss. 875, 165 So. 612 (1936)). In regard to foreseeability, the "inquiry is not whether the thing is to be foreseen or anticipated as one which will probably happen, but whether it is likely to happen, even though the likelihood may not be sufficient to amount to a comparative probability."
This Court has expressly rejected the argument that there is no negligence because the injury rarely occurs, or never before occurred. Gulf Ref. Co. v. Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234, 235 (1936) (citing Crawford v. City of Meridian, 174 Miss. 875, 165 So. 612 (1936)). In regard to foreseeability, the "inquiry is not whether the thing is to be foreseen or anticipated as one which will probably happen, but whether it is likely to happen, even though the likelihood may not be sufficient to amount to a comparative probability."