The trial court noted while determining which jury instructions would be allowed during the punitive damages phase that Plaintiffs would not be allowed to submit an instruction that stated ICR could be liable for punitive damages because of a failure to have a corporate policy as "there [was] no evidence and there is no law that says they have to have a corporate policy." The standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion.Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001) (citing ThompsonMach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). The information regarding corporate policy could have been relevant to the question of punitive damages, in that a corporate policy not to cut back trees might warrant such damages.
¶ 11. "The decision to grant or set aside a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 227 (Miss. 2001) (citing Williams v. Kilgore, 618 So.2d 51, 55 (Miss. 1992)).
¶ 17. Partain argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of David Herrington's pregnancy related comments. The standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2001) (citing Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). ¶ 18.
Defendant Nissan has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude at trial the deposition testimony of Terrin Courtney related to the corporate relationship between Nissan and Calsonic. A motion in limine "should be granted only when the trial court finds two factors are present: "(1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a 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." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So. 2d 223, 228 (Miss. 2001). At this stage, the court is of the opinion that the statements by Terrin Courtney would likely be admissible at trial; however, one of the reasons for deferring evidentiary rulings until trial is "so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice can be resolved in proper context."
The trial court should exercise its discretion within the strictures of Rules 55(c) and 60(b), along with the criteria set forth by this Court. Id. This Court reviews the trial court's grant or denial of a motion to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment for abuse of discretion. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 227 (Miss.2001). But if the trial court's decision was based on an error of law, then we will reverse.
¶ 27. Motions in limine are properly granted "only when the trial court finds two factors are present: (1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a 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." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 228 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss. 1988)).
¶ 18. "Admission of testimony is subject only to an abuse of discretion review." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001) (citing Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). ¶ 19.
"Admission of testimony is subject only to an abuse of discretion review." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001) (citing Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v.Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). Evidentiary rulings are within the broaddiscretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 784 (Miss.
Additionally, the elements of fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001). As a matter of law, the Mitchells could not do so.
Both Banes's fall and Thomas's fall occurred approximately 60-80 feet from where Yoste fell. Yoste argues that this evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing that Wal-Mart had notice of the allegedly hazardous condition in its parking lot. ¶ 7. The standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001) (citing Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). The trial court held that the proferred testimony was inadmissible for the purpose of showing that Wal-Mart had notice of the allegedly hazardous condition in its parking lot.