Clark v. Brass Eagle, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00369-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-26-2004 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Products liability - Section 11-1-63 Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith and Waller, P.JJ., Cobb, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz , J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-16-2002 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: The trial court granted Brass Eagle's motion for summary judgment finding the paintball gun did not malfunction and performed exactly as Clark and Rico expected. Case Number: 14-CI-99-0088 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John M. Clark |
DANA J. SWAN |
||
| Appellee: | Brass Eagle, Inc. | ARNULFO URSUA LUCIANO GERALD H. JACKS |
|
|
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 - Section 11-1-63 |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Clark filed a products liability action against Brass Eagle, Inc. and Chris Rico. The suit arose out of an incident when Rico aimed a paintball gun manufactured by Brass Eagle at Clark shooting him while Clark rode past Rico in his car. The suit sought compensatory and punitive damages. The court granted Brass Eagle's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Brass Eagle from the case with full prejudice. Clark appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Clark argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Brass Eagle because the affidavit of his expert witness, a professor of mechanical engineering at Mississippi State University, created a triable issue. Pursuant to section 11-1-63, a plaintiff making a products liability claim has the burden of showing that the defect that allegedly was the proximate cause of injury existed at the time that the product left the hands of the manufacturer, and that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. Clark offered no proof that the paintball gun used in the incident failed to function as expected and offered no feasible design alternative which, to a reasonable probability, would have prevented what happened to him. In fact, Clark testified that he was aware that there was protective eyewear available for purchase at Wal-Mart, but he chose not to do so. The most crucial testimony came from Rico who stated the paintball gun he was using never malfunctioned. Also, the paintball gun in question was never examined by an expert. Given this evidence, the court did not err in granting summary judgment to Brass Eagle. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
