Abrams v. Marlin Firearms Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01613-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-27-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Products liability - Evidence of alcohol consumption - Evidence of illegal deer hunting - M.R.E. 403 - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2001 Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court Judge: John M. Montgomery Disposition: The jury returned a verdict for the Appellees. Case Number: 97-0207 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jimmy Abrams and Mary Abrams |
CHARLES M. MERKEL
JACK R. DODSON |
||
| Appellee: | The Marlin Firearms Company and Gary Dedeaux d/b/a Gary's Pawn & Gunshop | JAMES A. BECKER, 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: | Products liability - Evidence of alcohol consumption - Evidence of illegal deer hunting - M.R.E. 403 - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | After sustaining a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his right leg, Jimmy Abrams filed a products liability action against Marlin Firearms Company and Gary Dedeaux d/b/a Gary's Pawn and Gunshop alleging that the Marlin 30-30 caliber hunting rifle he bought at the pawn shop was defective, unreasonably dangerous, and discharged without a trigger pull. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Marlin and Gary's, and Abrams appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidence of alcohol consumption/illegal deer hunting Abrams argues that the court erred in admitting evidence of his possible alcohol consumption, because there was no evidence that alcohol had anything to do with the accident and the proof never established that he was actually intoxicated. In the context of a products liability action, a plaintiff’s state of sobriety is relevant in the jury's assessment of his credibility in relating the events surrounding the incident and whether he was contributorily negligent. In this case, there was evidence of cold beer in Abrams' pick-up and the smell of alcohol on his breath. Evidence of possible alcohol consumption just prior to the accident was highly relevant and probative as to Abrams' credibility, his recollection of the accident since there were no other witnesses, and his contributory negligence. Abrams also argues that evidence of possible illegal spotlighting of deer was irrelevant because the accident occurred inside the pick-up. Under M.R.E. 403, the inquiry is whether any prejudice resulting from admissibility of the evidence is unfair. Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one. The possibility of illegal spotlighting was supported by the evidence and was meant to explain Marlin's theory of the accident, Abrams' credibility as a witness, and his recollection of how the accident occurred rather than to evoke rancor against Abrams within the jury. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Abrams argues that the jury's verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because there is no credible evidence that the accident occurred in any manner different than how he described it and because all witnesses agreed that the Marlin 30-30 would fire if the hammer was struck and that this problem could have been eliminated by a passive safety device. The evidence supports a reasonable inference that the accident occurred contrary to Abrams’ recollection of events. The timing of the accident according to Abrams in relation to when help arrived, the location where he was found in relation to the location of his mother's house and the hospital, the fact that a witness smelled alcohol on Abrams' breath, and the fact that another witness noted the beer in Abrams' truck was very cold allowed the jury to conclude that the accident occurred other than as Abrams recalled and/or was a result of his contributory negligence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
