context: From the evidence presented, we conclude that the jury could infer that, had the styrofoam loads been enclosed with mesh wrapping or lifted on a platform with guardrails, the incident would have more likely than not been prevented.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 24 S.W.3d 357, 361
citation_a.parenthetical: finding an expert's opinions would not be helpful to the jury, as the conclusions simply told the jury how to view the facts and involved matters within the average juror's common knowledge
citation_a.sentence: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 807 So.2d 382, 388 (Miss.2001) (“The general rule in Mississippi is that expert testimony is not required where the facts surrounding the alleged negligence are easily comprehensible to the jury.”); see also K-Mart Corp. v. Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d 357, 361 (Tex.2000) (finding an expert’s opinions would not be helpful to the jury, as the conclusions simply told the jury how to view the facts and involved matters within the average juror’s common knowledge).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 179 F.2d 593, 595
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that company rules and common sense made it the appellant's duty to see that a pistol was loaded properly, and the jury could have found that the appellant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of an accident
citation_b.sentence: See Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Cox, 179 F.2d 593, 595 (5th Cir.1950) (finding that company rules and common sense made it the appellant’s duty to see that a pistol was loaded properly, and the jury could have found that the appellant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of an accident). We agree with the trial judge that this case involved the basic common sense of an average layperson and, therefore, West’s failure to present expert testimony on causation was not detrimental to his negligence claim.