Williams v. Bennett, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00754-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00754-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-19-2006 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Products liability - Design defect - Section 11-1-63 - Innocent seller Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-27-2004 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: Granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees Case Number: 14-CI-04-0044 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | FLOYD WILLIAMS, JR. |
DANIEL M. CZAMANSKE, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | DONALD BENNETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND d/b/a KROSSTOWN TRADE & PAWN SHOP | WILLIAM O. LUCKETT, JR., THERESA L. CUMMINGS |
|
|
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 - Design defect - Section 11-1-63 - Innocent seller |
| Summary of the Facts: | Floyd Williams sustained a gunshot wound when his Lorcin .380 handgun accidentally fell to the ground from the door of his vehicle and discharged, striking his right leg. The Lorcin handgun was purchased by Krosstown Trade & Pawn Shop, owned and operated by Donald Bennett, from Stephanie Johnson, a local resident of Coahoma County. Bennett, through Krosstown, sold the Lorcin handgun to Alex Crumb. However, it is unclear from the pleadings how the Lorcin handgun came into Williams’ possession. Williams filed suit and named Donald Bennett, Individually, and d/b/a Krosstown Trade & Pawn Shop, and Euclid Avenue Sales, Inc. as defendants. Bennett filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. By agreement of the parties, the other defendant, Euclid Avenue Sales, Inc., was dismissed with prejudice. Williams appeals the trial court’s grant of Bennett’s motion for summary judgment. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Williams argues his claim presents triable issues of fact under our products liability statute. In general, a claimant must make out a prima facie products liability case in Mississippi by showing that a product was defective; that the defect caused the product to be unreasonably dangerous; that the unreasonably dangerous defect caused the harm complained of; and that the defective condition existed at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller. In this case, Williams’ theory of liability is that Bennett was in the business of marketing and selling handguns; that Bennett sold the handgun that caused Williams’s injury; and that, at the time of Williams’ injury, the condition of the handgun had not materially changed from when it was manufactured. Williams alleges a design defect existed in the Lorcin handgun and relies on section 11-1-63(a)(i)(3). Section 11-1-63(f) requires a claimant in a design defect case to prove three additional elements. The statute requires the danger presented by a product’s design be foreseeable by the manufacturer/seller. The inclusion of this proof requirement serves to protect the “innocent seller” who acts as a mere conduit of a product and has far less knowledge as to defective design than would a manufacturer or distributor. While foreseeability is an element of proof required by our statute, a claimant must also offer a feasible design alternative. A review of the record reveals that Williams possessed a Lorcin handgun; that the serial number on the gun was that of a gun once bought and sold by Bennett; and, that Williams was injured when he dropped his Lorcin handgun on the ground when the safety was off, causing it to discharge. The record does not show any proof that Bennett, if considered a seller of handguns for the purposes of this case, had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the danger that caused the injury in this case. There is no proof of the condition of the gun at any point in the chain of ownership other than its condition at the time of injury, let alone what condition the gun was in at the time Bennett supposedly gained imputed knowledge of it. Additionally, there is no proof concerning a feasible design alternative. Therefore, the trial court appropriately granted summary judgment because Williams failed to present a genuine issue of material fact for trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
