Forbes v. Gen. Motors Corp., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01201-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01201-COA2003-CT-01201-SCT2003-CT-01201-SCT2003-CT-01201-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 10-12-2004 | |
* 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: 10-04-2005 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Products liability - Directed verdict - Breach of express warranty - Factual representations - Owner’s manual - Expert testimony - Defective air bag - Proximate causation - Photographs - Evidence of other accidents Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, CHANDLER, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Dissenting Author : IRVING, J., Dissent Joined By : KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ. Procedural History: Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-29-2003 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT GRANTED Case Number: 2001-0260 |
|
| Note: | Motion for rehearing denied, but original opinion withdrawn and new one submitted | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HOYT FORBES AND HILDA FORBES |
WAYNE DOWDY |
||
| Appellee: | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND MACK GRUBBS MOTORS, INC. | GENE D. BERRY, PAUL V. CASSISA |
|
|
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: | Personal injury - Products liability - Directed verdict - Breach of express warranty - Factual representations - Owner’s manual - Expert testimony - Defective air bag - Proximate causation - Photographs - Evidence of other accidents |
| Summary of the Facts: | After the air bag in the 1992 Oldsmobile Delta 88 automobile Hilda Forbes was driving failed to deploy, Hilda and Hoyt Forbes brought an action against General Motors Corporation. GM moved for a directed verdict, and the plaintiffs confessed the following portions of the motion: plaintiffs failed to prove that the air bag deviated in a material way from GM’s specifications; plaintiffs failed to prove that the air bag was defective in design; and plaintiffs failed to prove that the air bag was defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings. The judge then granted the remainder of GM’s motion for a directed verdict, and the plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Directed verdict The plaintiffs argue that the court erred by granting GM’s motion for directed verdict, because the air bag breached an express warranty or failed to conform to other express factual representations upon which they justifiably relied in using the product. They claim that Mr. Forbes was assured by GM’s representation that its air bag in the 1992 Oldsmobile Delta 88 would inflate in a fraction of a second when the automobile was involved in a frontal collision and the collision was ‘hard enough’. However, the evidence does not support their claim that GM’s representatives made these statements. In addition, the plaintiffs presented no evidence that the 1992 Oldsmobile Delta 88 automobile did not in fact have an operational air bag system. The plaintiffs also point to the owner’s manual as the source of the express warranty or express factual representation. However, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Forbes testified that they ever read or relied on the owner's manual, or the statement in the owner’s manual about the air bag, before they purchased the automobile or before her accident. A person cannot justifiably rely on something they never read. With regard to the question as to whether the collision was hard enough, the trial judge correctly concluded that such knowledge required expert testimony. The plaintiffs offered no expert witnesses on this question. Therefore, GM’s motion for directed verdict was properly granted. Issue 2: Defective air bag The plaintiffs argue that the air bag was defective or unreasonably dangerous because it did not deploy upon impact. Although they called an expert witness to testify about the condition of the air bag system, he could not say whether the failure of the air bag to deploy was defective or unreasonably dangerous to Mrs. Forbes. The fact that Mrs. Forbes was injured in an automobile accident is not proof of a defective product. Issue 3: Proximate causation The plaintiffs argue that they presented evidence that the failure of the air bag to inflate caused Mrs. Forbes to strike the windshield. Proximate causation is a necessary element in a products liability action. The plaintiff must show a causal link between the defect and the resulting injury. The plaintiffs introduced no evidence to differentiate the injuries that Mrs. Forbes sustained in this accident that nobody claimed GM caused from those injuries that Mrs. Forbes would have sustained if the air bag had deployed in this accident. Issue 4: Photographs The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in excluding from evidence photographs of other GM vehicles that had been involved in accidents. When evidence of other accidents or occurrences is offered for any purpose other than to show notice, the proponent of that evidence must show that the facts and circumstances of the other accidents or occurrences are closely similar to the facts and circumstances at issue. Here, the plaintiffs did not offer any proof that the other accidents occurred under closely similar conditions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
