Forbes v. General Motors Corp., et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CT-01201-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01201-COA ; 2003-CA-01201-COA ; 2003-CT-01201-SCT ; 2003-CT-01201-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-25-2006
Opinion Author: CARLSON, J.
Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Directed verdict - Section 11-1-63(a) - Breach of express warranty - Defective condition - Proof of injuries - Proximate causation - Photographs
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, GRAVES AND RANDOLPH, JJ.
Dissenting Author : DICKINSON, J.
Dissent Joined By : SMITH, C.J., AND COBB, P.J.
Concurs in Result Only: DIAZ, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
Writ of Certiorari: Granted
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-29-2003
Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: R. I. Prichard, III
Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for a Directed Verdict after Appellant presented their case-in-chief
Case Number: 2001-0260

Note: The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeals. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO29709.pdf

  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, 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 - Directed verdict - Section 11-1-63(a) - Breach of express warranty - Defective condition - Proof of injuries - Proximate causation - Photographs

Summary of the Facts: After a car accident, Hilda Forbes, the driver of the car sustaining front-end damage, sued the auto manufacturer because the air bag failed to deploy. After the plaintiffs rested their case-in-chief, the trial court granted a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant General Motors, ruling that Forbes and her husband had failed to present sufficient evidence to support a verdict in their favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Directed verdict The Forbeses argued that the product breached an express warranty or failed to conform to other express factual representations upon which they relied; the defective condition rendered the air bag and car unreasonably dangerous to them; and the dangerous condition proximately caused the injuries to Mrs. Forbes. Section 11-1-63(a) states that: (a) The manufacturer or seller of the product shall not be liable if the claimant does not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller: (i) 1. The product was defective because it deviated in a material way from the manufacturer's specifications or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same manufacturing specifications, or 2. The product was defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions, or 3. The product was designed in a defective manner, or 4. The product breached an express warranty or failed to conform to other express factual representations upon which the claimant justifiably relied in electing to use the product; and (ii) The defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer; and (iii) The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product proximately caused the damages for which recovery is sought. The plaintiff must prove (ii), (iii), and at least one of four elements of a claim under (I). Forbes’s counsel confessed having no cause of action based on a defective product under subsections (a)(i)(1), (a)(i)(2), or (a)(i)(3). The remaining possibility for Forbes’s cause of action is found under subsection (a)(i)(4), the breach of an express warranty. The essence of the Forbeses’ argument is that GM sold its product with the express warranty that the air bag would deploy in the event of a front-end collision when the impact was “hard enough.” The Forbeses claim that the amount of force sustained by their car in this accident was certainly hard enough according to their experts’ testimony, and that therefore the express warranty was breached. Mr. Forbes made his purchase conditional on one factor, the presence of a functional driver’s side air bag. Forbes inquired about the presence of an air bag from the salesman and ensured that the vehicle he was purchasing was equipped with one as a specific feature. More importantly, he paid a higher price to have an air bag included. While the salesman himself may not substantively assert facts making GM liable, here he was doing nothing more that conveying the express warranty to Forbes. The salesman was merely relaying a fact GM represented in their owner’s manual, that the car he was buying had a working air bag. Since there is both an express warranty, the promise of a functional driver’s side air bag, and justifiable reliance, the fact that, but for the promise of the air bag, Forbes would not have purchased the vehicle, the statutory requirements are met. The question of whether the warranty was breached depends on what amount of force is “hard enough” to trigger an air bag and whether the car sustained that amount of force. The plaintiffs’ case relied in part on the testimony of Major John Tolar of the Columbia Police Dept. who stated that, in his opinion, it was unusual for an air bag not to inflate where damage to both cars was extensive, and Danny Alexander, the passenger of the other car in the accident, who testified to his injuries and damage to that car. The mechanic who removed and repaired the Delta 88 testified that the metal radiator support, spanning the front of the car and on which the air bag collision sensors were mounted, was driven back four to six inches from the collision. An expert beyond what the Forbeses presented should not be required to point out to the jury that Mr. Forbes thought he was buying a car with an air bag that would inflate in an accident such as this and that the collision was sufficiently hard to deploy the air bag consistent with his expectations. Having provided testimony from at least one credible witness with regard to the impact of the collision, the Forbeses have at least presented sufficient evidence to create a jury issue. The Forbeses established a prima facie case, and there were no proper grounds for the grant of a directed verdict. The Forbeses also argue that the air bag was in a defective condition for breaching its warranty by not deploying when the car was involved in a front-end collision. Because of that defective condition, the Forbeses argue the product was unreasonably dangerous to the driver, causing her to be thrown into the windshield. Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the ‘defect that allegedly was the proximate cause of their injury existed at the time that the product left the hands of the manufacturer, and that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, the proof must support that no material change in that product occurred after leaving the manufacturer’s control. The Forbeses’ expert witness, despite admitting that he was not an expert on air bag design or the various factors or conditions of air bags, had extensive experience as an expert witness in cases involving questions which required engineering and mechanical knowledge and had conducted research for his testimony in this case. Testimony in the record provides enough proof of Mrs. Forbes’s injuries that the failure of the air bag to deflate could indeed be found unreasonably dangerous by a jury. During her time in treatment when she underwent intensive care, Mrs. Forbes experienced mental, speech, and physical rehabilitation, blood clots, surgery, and a coma. Thus, the Forbeses met their burden on this issue to show any defective condition of the air bag. With regard to whether the defective condition of the product was the proximate cause of the damages, the proximate cause is the cause which in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. At trial, the Forbeses offered as their expert a retired Louisiana police officer trained in accident reconstruction, or determining the cause of accidents. He testified that Mrs. Forbes would not have struck the windshield if the air bag had inflated. Thus, the Forbeses’ burden was satisfied through expert testimony. Issue 2: Photographs The Forbeses argue that the court erred in excluding from evidence photographs of other GM automobiles in accidents when the air bags did inflate. 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. The evidence, in order to be admissible, must be carefully qualified. Here, the evidence of photographs was not carefully qualified. The Forbeses did not offer any testimony on speed or weather conditions of the accidents involving the Pontiac and Chevrolet, and both of those cars are a different make and model than the one involved this case. Additionally, neither car in the proffered photographs were involved in this type of rear-end accident. The trial court and Court of Appeals were both correct in holding that the Forbeses did not meet their burden to show a substantial similarity in conditions existed between the accidents in the photographs and the one in which their car was involved.


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