Russell, et al. v. Ford Motor Co.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01299-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01299-COA2005-CT-01299-SCT
Oral Argument: 08-24-2006
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-17-2006
Opinion Author: LEE, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Negligence claims - Leave to amend - Statute of limitations - M.R.C.P. 15(c)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-01-2005
Appealed from: Jasper County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert G. Evans
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
Case Number: 22-0114
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: EARNESTINE RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF DENNIS E. WILSON, DECEASED; AND GEORGE JEAN HAYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF MARIO HAYES, DECEASED




 SARA BAILEY RUSSO, DEBORAH MCDONALD, DAVID M. READ



  
Appellee: FORD MOTOR COMPANY J. STEPHEN KENNEDY, BRADLEY S. CLANTON, WALKER (BILL) JONES, BARRY W. FORD  
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: Wrongful death - Negligence claims - Leave to amend - Statute of limitations - M.R.C.P. 15(c)
Summary of the Facts: Dennis Wilson and Mario Hayes were killed in a car accident. The airbags in Wilson’s 1996 Ford Taurus did not deploy. Earnestine Russell, individually and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Wilson, filed suit against Ford Motor Company and Willie Overby, owner of Easy Ride Auto Sales. George Jean Hayes, individually and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Mario Hayes, filed suit on the same day against Ford, Overby, and the estate of Wilson. The two lawsuits were consolidated. Both plaintiffs filed amended complaints adding Ford Motor Credit Company as a defendant. Ford filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ford from the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs appeal.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ford on the product liability claims Russell asserted against Ford in the amended complaints. Russell was denied leave by the trial court to amend the complaints and add separate negligence claims against Ford. Russell’s sole argument on appeal discusses Ford’s negligence. Since the trial court did not allow Russell to amend the complaint, the particular issues postulated in the proposed amended complaint were not substantively before the court. Russell has waived this issue for appellate purposes. In addition, Russell has failed to bring forth any evidence or sworn testimony demonstrating that the airbag safety system, the steering system or brakes on the 1996 Taurus were defective in any respect. The plaintiffs argue that the court erred by partially denying their motions for leave to amend. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in partially denying the motions for leave to amend based on the fact that the statutory period expired the day before the motions were filed. The amended complaints Russell was proposing would have been filed after the statutory period expired and, consequently, would have been time-barred. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in holding that Russell’s proposed amendments did not qualify under M.R.C.P. 15(c). The claims asserted in the amended pleading and the original pleading must arise out of the same nucleus of common facts. The “conduct, transaction or occurrence” that gave rise to Russell’s original claims against Ford was the designing and manufacturing of the 1996 Taurus, as well as the representations Ford made to the general public regarding the quality and safety of the vehicle. On the other hand, the “conduct, transaction or occurrence” that forms the basis of Russell’s proposed amendments was the failure of Ford’s area manager, Henderson, to inspect and repair the vehicle, as well as his failure to adequately warn the buying public about the inoperable airbags. These events are completely separate and distinct and, therefore, give rise to separate and distinct causes of action.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court