"`[A]dmission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.'" K-Mart Corp. v.Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (Miss. 1999). ¶ 36.

In Mississippi, a plaintiff may espouse one of three theories in support of a claim of negligence such as this: (1) that the defendant's own negligence created a dangerous condition which caused plaintiff's injury; (2) that the defendant had actual knowledge of the danger she faced as an invitee or (3) that based upon the passage of time, the defendant should have known about the dangerous condition caused by another party and if defendant had acted reasonably, i.e., constructive knowledge of that condition should be imputed to that defendant. K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy ex rel. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 980 (Miss. 1999) (citing Downs v. Choo, 656 So.2d 84, 86 (Miss. 1995); Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So.2d 1282, 1284 (Miss. 1992)).

¶ 21. "Admission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." Bower, 758 So.2d at 413 (¶ 35) (quoting K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (¶ 21) (Miss. 1999)). For this Court to reverse a trial court's decision based on the admission of evidence, "it must result in prejudice and harm or adversely affect a substantial right of a party."

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove proximate cause under Mississippi law. See K-Mart, Corp. v. Hardy, No. 97-CA-01223-SCT, 1999 WL 145306, at *5 (Miss. March 18, 1999). "`[N]egligence may be established by circumstantial evidence in the absence of testimony by eyewitnesses provided the circumstances are such as to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and place it within the field of legitimate inference.'"

To prevail on a claim of negligence under Mississippi law, "a plaintiff must prove by the preponderance of the evidence each element of negligence: duty, breach of duty, proximate causation and injury." Schepens v. City of Long Beach, 924 So. 2d 620, 623 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (quoting K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So. 2d 975, 981 (Miss. 1999)). Defendants do not challenge whether Toulmon owed a duty to Bridges, and a review of Mississippi law clearly shows that a duty was owed.

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy , 735 So. 2d 975, 983 (Miss. 1999) ). We conclude that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion by admitting the medical records because they were excepted from the rule against hearsay and were properly authenticated by way of certification.

Blake v. Clein, 903 So.2d 710, 723 (Miss. 2005) (quoting K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (Miss. 1999)). Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when excluding these records.

The reviewing court may reverse a case only if, "the admission or exclusion of evidence . . . results in prejudice and harm or adversely affects a substantial right of a party." K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (Miss. 1999). It is self evident that a defendant loses a substantive right when he is prohibited from examining a close family member regarding his or her firsthand knowledge of plaintiff's physical and mental condition both before and after the alleged injury was incurred, as well as the plaintiff's post-surgical condition and activities, and any acts or statements contrary to those espoused in court.

We must review the "entire record and must accept that `evidence which supports or reasonably tends to support the findings of fact made below, together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom and which favor the lower court's findings of fact.'" Id. (quoting K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy ex rel. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 980 (Miss. 1999) (citations omitted)). As the evidence clearly supports the circuit court judge's findings, this Court should not second guess his good judgment, especially in light of the fact that he viewed the evidence and heard the testimony of the witnesses.

. . . result[s] in prejudice and harm or adversely affect[s] a substantial right of a party." K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975 (Miss. 1999) (citing Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 132 (Miss. 1991)). B. The Law of Conspiracy: Preliminary Findings on Evidence