General Motors Corp. v. Myles


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-01297-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-06-2005
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED
Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Exclusion of testimony - Expert opinion
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.,
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.,
Dissenting Author : Graves, J.,
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-23-2003
Appealed from: Humphreys County Circuit Court
Judge: Jannie M. Lewis
Disposition: The jury returned a verdict in favor of Myles for $10 million.
Case Number: 99-0064
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION




 FRANK M. HINMAN KARI KROGSENG GENE D. BERRY PAUL V. CASSISA, JR.



  
Appellee: PRISCILLA MYLES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE HEIRS AT LAW OF JARROD MYLES, DECEASED ANTWAYN LAVELL PATRICK ISAAC K. BYRD KATRINA M. BIBB GIBBS  
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 - Exclusion of testimony - Expert opinion
Summary of the Facts: Jarrod Myles suffered fatal injuries in a single-vehicle accident. Alcoholic beverage containers were found by the deputy sheriff on the accident scene in and around the truck. The coroner's report concluded that Jarrod's blood alcohol content was .11% ethyl alcohol. Jarrod's widow, Priscilla Myles Calhoun, individually and on behalf of Jarrod's heirs at law, filed a wrongful death action against General Motors Corporation, Herrin-Gear Chevrolet, Inc., and salesman, Joe Powell. Prior to trial, Myles filed a motion in limine to limit the videotape deposition testimony of the toxicologist who analyzed Jarrod's blood to determine its BAC at the time of the accident. The court denied Myles's motion in limine. However, Myles renewed the motion in limine at trial. The jury watched the expert's videotape deposition. On the following day, the court determined that the deposition testimony should have been limited because he did not specifically state that his opinion was given to a reasonable degree of probability. The court struck the entire videotape testimony. The parties presented various experts as to their theory of the accident and the design of the ball stud and the truck's suspension system. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Myles for $10 million. GM filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial, or remittitur. The court denied GM's motion for JNOV but granted GM's motion for remittitur and reduced the verdict to $5,428,730. GM appeals.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: GM argues that the court erred in striking the entire testimony of the toxicologist. The court determined that the deposition testimony should have been limited because he did not specifically state that his opinion was given to a reasonable degree of probability. The court's reasoning is flawed. While the expert's response did not used the words "within a reasonable degree of probability," the question asked of him was phrased in that form. On cross-examination by Myles's attorney, the expert again testified as to his opinion regarding whether an individual with a BAC of .11% would have a possible impairment that would contribute to an accident. In phrasing the question, Myles's attorney asked for his opinion within a reasonable degree of probability. The expert’s testimony was crucial to GM’s theory of defense at trial and critical to GM's central disputes as to how the accident occurred and what caused the accident and Jarrod's resulting fatal injuries. Since this testimony is crucial to the main issue and central to GM's defense, the court erred excluding it.


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