The Ninth Court of Appeals has affirmed a take nothing judgment in a case brought by Michael Milson, who unsuccessfully sued Entergy in February 2008, alleging one of its employees negligently rear-ended and injured him.

The case went to trial on Sept. 27, 2010, and ended a week later with an Entergy victory, prompting Milson to appeal the judgment the following month.

On Thursday, Feb. 16, the Ninth Court justices affirmed the trial court's judgment, court records show.

"Milson, acting pro se on appeal, failed to bring to the attention of the trial court any of the complaints he now argues on appeal," wrote Justice Hollis Horton in the court's memorandum opinion.

"Because Milson's issues were not properly preserved for our review, we affirm the trial court's judgment."

According to his appellate brief, Milson argued that he should be granted a new trial because a female member of the jury had a previous conflict with his wife.

"Therefore, I believe that she (the juror) presented a conflict of interest and misrepresented herself," the brief states.

Conversely, Entergy asserted that Milson waived his right to appeal any alleged jury misconduct when he and his attorney failed to bring the issue to the trial court's attention, court papers state.

According to his original complaint, Milson claims on Feb. 5, 2007, he was turning east onto Thomas Boulevard in Port Arthur when his vehicle was rear-ended by an Entergy vehicle driven by employee Harry Carmouche, who was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident.

During the trial, Milson argued Carmouche negligently failed to keep a proper lookout and apply his brakes in time. He blamed Entergy for failing to properly train and supervise Carmouche.

However, jurors found no negligence on the part of Entergy.

Provost Umphrey attorney Jane Leger represented Milson during the trial.

Entergy and Carmouche are represented by Beaumont attorney Christine Kibbe.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, presided over the trial.

Trial case No. E181-230
Appeals case No. 09-10-00483-CV

More News