Goode v. Synergy Corp.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-01036-COA
Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01036-SCT ; 2001-CA-01036-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-25-2003
Opinion Author: Lee, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Newly discovered evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Griffis, J.
Dissent Joined By : Southwick, P.J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-14-2001
Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: R. Kenneth Coleman
Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Case Number: M98-420

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: C. E. GOODE, DARENE GOODE, RENEE HUEY AND BARRY HUEY, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF BRITTANY HUEY; ANY AND ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF BRITTANY HUEY




MICHAEL D. GREER H. SCOT SPRAGINS JOHN BRIAN HYNEMAN



 

Appellee: SYNERGY CORPORATION FORREST W. STRINGFELLOW WILLIAM CHARLES WILLIAMS JR.  

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 - Newly discovered evidence

Summary of the Facts: A fire destroyed the home of the Goodes and took the life of Brittany Huey, their granddaughter. The Goodes and Hueys filed an actions against Synergy Corporation, their supplier of propane gas, for negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation, and breach of warranty. The jury found for Synergy on a claim of property damage on behalf of the Goodes and a wrongful death claim on behalf of the Hueys. The Hueys filed a motion for new trial which was based on an allegation of newly discovered evidence. The court denied the motion and also denied the Goode's joinder to the motion. The Goodes and Hueys appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The new evidence came in the form of a sworn affidavit by George Frayser, a former employee of Synergy, who informed the plaintiffs that he had manufactured and installed the plate on the water heater while in the course and scope of his employment with Synergy. The Hueys and Goodes argue that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for new trial because the newly discovered evidence was unknown to the plaintiffs at any time before or during trial, although evidence of this type was diligently sought through discovery and that the evidence was material to the issue of the fire's cause and would have required that the jury reach a different verdict. A motion based upon newly discovered evidence may not be granted unless it can be shown that the evidence was discovered following the trial; due diligence on the part of the movant to discover the new evidence is shown or may be inferred; the evidence is material and not cumulative or impeaching; and the evidence is such that a new trial would probably produce a new result. Facts implying reasonable diligence must be provided by the movant. A plaintiff cannot fail to investigate important information and then attempt to assert that information as new evidence at the end of the trial. Even though the plaintiffs requested information concerning persons associated with the product, the record shows that at no time before or during trial was Frayser ever identified as an employee of Synergy Corporation, much less, an employee who performed service on the gas system at the Goodes' residence. The plaintiffs used due diligence in attempting to ascertain the information, and the evidence shows that the Goodes could not have discovered his identity earlier. The fact that George Frayser was an employee of Synergy and performed modifications on their water heater was unknown to them and could only have come from Synergy. Because Frayser did not testify at trial, the court was never afforded the opportunity to consider his testimony and judge the credibility for itself. In addition, the testimony is not of an impeaching or cumulative nature as it deals with testimony never before offered to a jury. It is material, because it goes to the cause of the fire. If the plaintiffs are allowed to present their case, a new result would probably emerge as Frayser's testimony links the cause of the fire to Synergy Corporation by virtue of the fact that he admits to being within the course and scope of his employment at the time of his actions. Therefore, the order denying the motion for new trial is reversed and remanded for a new trial so this newly discovered evidence may be presented to the jury.


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