Beckham v. Gen. Motors Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02275-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-18-2006 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Breach of warranty - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-15-2004 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Kathy King Jackson Disposition: JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF GENERAL MOTORS Case Number: CI-2003-00002(2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GLENN BECKHAM |
AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS |
||
| Appellee: | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION | GENE D. BERRY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Breach of warranty - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Glenn Beckham lost control of his vehicle, striking a culvert and severely injuring himself. Beckham filed a lawsuit alleging that General Motors Corporation was negligent in that the air bag installed in his vehicle failed to deploy and that GM breached express and implied warranties of fitness for use. The jury returned a verdict in favor of GM, and Beckham appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Beckham hired an accident reconstructionist and mechanical engineer to reconstruct the accident and, if possible, explain why the air bag did not deploy. Beckham argues that the court erred in ruling that the accident reconstructionist was not an expert in either biomechanics or air bags, and could not give his opinion as to air bag operation. An expert witness must possess that skill, knowledge or experience in the field in which he purports to render expert testimony to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in its search for truth. Here, this was the expert’s first case involving an allegedly defective air bag, and while that by itself is not fatal, his lack of history in working with or studying the internal workings of an air bag module cast doubt on his expertise in such an area. Additionally, even if he was deemed an expert in air bag module operation, Beckham’s plea would still fail as, based on the expert’s allowed testimony, Beckham suffered no prejudice as a result of the lower court’s limitations on the testimony. The expert testified that based on the data he received from GM and his calculations of the accident, the air bag should have fired. Exclusion of the additional information regarding a technical description of air bag operation did not deny Beckham a fair trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
