Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams

50 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Minier

    380 So. 3d 889 (Miss. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    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), aff’d per curiam, 394 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1968). As will be more fully developed below, the cases informed the Estate of Stewart Court’s statement "that the question of foreseeability is different from the question of causation."

  2. Clark v. Gilmore

    57 So. 2d 328 (Miss. 1952)   Cited 16 times
    In Clark v. Gilmore, 213 Miss. 590, 57 So.2d 328, (Hn 2) this Court cited with approval as a good definition of negligence the following statement from 65 C.J.S., Negligence, Sec. 1 (2), p. 304: "Of the numerous definitions of `negligence', among the best has been declared to be `the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.'"

    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.

  3. Paramount-Richards Theatres v. Price

    211 Miss. 879 (Miss. 1951)   Cited 26 times

    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.

  4. Porter v. Grand Casino of Miss., Inc.

    NO. 2012-CT-01793-SCT (Miss. Jan. 7, 2016)

    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."

  5. Porter v. Grand Casino of Miss., Inc.

    181 So. 3d 980 (Miss. 2016)   Cited 9 times

    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.

  6. Glover v. Jackson State University

    2005 CA 2328 (Miss. 2007)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that criminal acts are generally intervening causes if they are not foreseeable

    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.

  7. Glover v. Jackson State University

    2005 CA 2328 (Miss. 2007)

    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.

  8. Jackson v. Estate of Stewart ex Rel. Womack

    2003 CA 1413 (Miss. 2005)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that the MTCA applies to actions alleging a breach of an implied contract provision

    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).

  9. Rein v. Benchmark Construction Co.

    2001 CA 1885 (Miss. 2004)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that the nursing home was the direct beneficiary of the contract between the nursing home and landscaping company and as such the resident of the nursing home was only an incidental beneficiary

    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."

  10. REIN v. BENCHMARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

    2001 CA 1885 (Miss. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    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."