- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Technology and Retail & Leisure industries
- within Privacy and Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
The Mississippi Supreme Court declined to permit the “reptile theory” (aka “the edge”) questions in jury trials. In a matter of first impression earlier this spring, the Mississippi Supreme Court, in its opinion Greer v. Key [https://courts.ms.gov/images/Opinions/CO190597.pdf] defined the reptile theory as:
Application of this theory involves either asking questions about making references to “personal safety, community safety, conscience of the community, danger to the community, and other similar ‘reptile theory’ topics and phrases,” which has been flatly rejected by federal courts in Mississippi.
Relying on its own prior holdings against golden-rule arguments, as well as findings by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals prohibiting golden-rule and reptile arguments, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the circuit court's rulings of inadmissibility of lines of questioning on the general points of the law, rather than specifics regarding the incident at issue.
While Greer is correct in that foreseeability, as it relates to proximate cause, is a question of fact for the jury, foreseeability in this case falls within the context of the duty of care, which is a question of law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]