Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (2026)
Questions of negligence and contributory negligence for jury
✓ current as of July 2026
All questions of negligence and contributory negligence shall be for the jury to determine.
Codes, Hemingway's 1917, § 503; 1930, § 512; 1942, § 1455; Laws, 1910, ch. 135; Laws, 1920, ch. 312.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Baptiste v. Jitney Jungle Stores of Am., Inc., 651 So. 2d 1063 (Miss. 1995).
Baptiste v. Jitney Jungle Stores of Am., Inc., 651 So. 2d 1063 (Miss. 1995). “First, it is readily apparent that there is a factual dispute over whether Baptiste suffered injuries as a result of the Defendants' negligence, either collectively or individually. The combination of debris and bread racks which cluttered the entrance obviously affected the way…”
Tharp v. Bunge Corp., 641 So. 2d 20 (Miss. 1994). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (1972). For the open and obvious defense to be a complete bar to a negligence claim, the plaintiff must be one hundred percent (100%) negligent himself.”
City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So. 2d 475 (Miss. 1983). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (1972). Even without these constitutional and statutory considerations, the familiar rules stated above would necessarily evolve as a matter of institutional necessity.”
McFarland v. Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 919 So. 2d 894 (Miss. 2005). “The issue of Entergy's negligence was properly submitted to the jury under Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-17, "All questions of negligence and contributory negligence shall be for the jury to determine.”
Jesco, Inc. v. Whitehead, 451 So. 2d 706 (Miss. 1984). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (1972). Neither constitution nor statute, however, have ever been considered to deny the trial courts of this state, and this Court on appeal, the authority to set aside jury verdicts on terms and grounds which were available at common law.”
Downs v. Choo, 656 So. 2d 84 (Miss. 1995). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (1972). For the open and obvious defense to be a complete bar to a negligence claim, the plaintiff must be one hundred percent (100%) negligent himself.”
Hall v. Cagle, 773 So. 2d 928 (Miss. 2000). “1994) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (1972)). Miss.Code Ann.”
Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Cross-Appellees, 512 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1975). “1972 Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-17. 20 . Section 11-7-13 provides, insofar as it is relevant to this appeal, as follows: § 11-7-13.”
Reikes v. Martin, 471 So. 2d 385 (Miss. 1985). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (1972). In this case, there was conflicting evidence as to whether Laverne Martin's negligence contributed to her own injuries and damages.”
Upchurch Ex Rel. Upchurch v. Rotenberry, 761 So. 2d 199 (Miss. 2000). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (Supp.1999). Generally, proximate causation is a matter reserved for the jury.”
First Nat'l Bank v. Langley, 314 So. 2d 324 (Miss. 1975). “The jury could have, and apparently did, consider the fact that since the appellant advised the bank that he put the money in the "night deposit" machine, the agents of the bank should have known the money was in the "night deposit" machine somewhere.”
Smith v. Waggoners Trucking Corp., 69 So. 3d 773 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “2000) (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-17 (Supp.1999)). And under Mississippi’s comparative-negligence doctrine, juries are permitted to consider whether “negligence by both parties is concurrent and contributes to injury[.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.