of local traffic ordinances or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic. Nevertheless, §§ 77-9-247 and 248 (discussing installation of cross-bucks), § 77-9-251 (discussing duty of railroad in maintaining the grade), § 77-9-245 (duty to enclose depots), and § 77-9-253 (duty to maintain stock gaps and cattle guards) clearly refer to duties of the railroad in the interest of public safety. This refutes the point that KCS has no duty toward the public in operation of its railroad. However, foreseeability and breach of duty are issues to be decided by the finder of fact once sufficient evidence is presented in a negligence case. Lyle v. Mladinich, 584 So.2d 397, 400 (Miss.1991). III. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING RECOVERY OF HEDONIC DAMAGES. ¶ 20. 3, 353 (Tex.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>); Kirk v. Washington State Univ., 109 Wash.2d
holding that plaintiffs made a sufficient claim for damages for predeath pain and suffering by decedent holding that pain and suffering does not survive the death of the injured holding conscious pain is necessary element to maintenance of survival action and even survival of injuries for considerable length of time cannot form basis for recovery of damages unless decedent consciously experienced pain and suffering holding that claims for pain and suffering are the separate property of a spouse recognizing as an element of pain and suffering