Grant v. Ford Motor Co.
89 So. 3d 655
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Vehicle collision in Clarke County, Mississippi (Sept. 28, 2002) involving a 1996 Ford Probe and a 1998 Toyota; the child Maggard seated in the Ford Probe died from head injury; Doris Riley ran a stop sign; Grant, personal representative for Maggard’s estate, sued Ford alleging design/manufacturing defects; Ford moved for summary judgment after extensive pretrial litigation; trial court granted summary judgment; appellate review is de novo; motions to compel design drawings and exclude expert Benedict’s opinions were denied or granted in part; court upheld exclusion of Benedict’s opinions and denial of further discovery, leading to summary judgment for Ford.
- Grant sought design drawings from Ford (ultimately Mazda-led design) but Ford argued no possession/control; Mazda denied production; production agreement expired; court held Ford had no control over drawings; Rule 34(a) requires possession/control; no abuse of discretion in denying motion to compel.
- Trial court excluded portions of Benedict affidavits and certain opinions as unreliable under Rule 702/Daubert; trial court found Benedict unqualified on biomechanics and that his post-deposition data was not admissible; seasonable supplementation rejected; trial court noted prior deposition testing insufficient to support rebound theory.
- Court applied Rule 702/Daubert gatekeeping; affirmed exclusion of Benedict’s seatbelt, structural integrity, and biomechanical opinions; holding that Benedict’s testing was insufficient, untested concepts (rebound theory) not supported, and no feasible 1996 design alternative offered; court found no abuse in excluding the evidence.
- Summary judgment affirmed because Grant failed to prove causation/defect without admissible expert testimony; MPLA requires proof of defect and causation; because Benedict’s opinions were excluded, Grant lacked evidence to prove essential elements; Williams v. Bennett cited regarding failure to prove requisite elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying compelment of design drawings | Grant claimed Ford controlled Mazda drawings | Ford lacked possession/control; production expired; Mazda refused | No error; Ford had no control/possession; denial affirmed. |
| Whether Benedict affidavits/testimony were properly excluded | Benedict’s affidavits supplemented deposition; testing was ongoing | Late, unnoted supplementation; unreliability | Exclusion upheld; Benedict’s seatbelt, structural, and biomechanical opinions excluded. |
| Whether the court properly denied additional discovery and 30(b)(6) deposition | Need further deposition/testimony to prove causation | Discovery closed; deposition insufficient to show causation | No abuse of discretion; discovery management within trial court's discretion. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given lack of admissible causation evidence | Without Benedict, causation proven by other means | No admissible expert proof of defect or causation | Affirmed; no triable issue on causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Imperial Palace of Miss., LLC, 76 So.3d 759 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (de novo review for summary judgment; light of record to favor non-movant)
- Anglado v. Leaf River Forest Prods., 716 So.2d 543 (Miss. 1998) (standard of review for summary judgment; evidence viewed favorably to non-movant)
- Hughs v. Hughs, 809 So.2d 742 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (notice and broader motion approach; substantial compliance in notices)
- Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1984) (control of documents requires ability to obtain from third parties)
- West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So.2d 714 (Miss. 1995) (seasonableness of discovery supplementation; immediacy)
- Glenn v. Overhead Door Corp., 935 So.2d 1074 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (experts must provide substantiated testing beyond bottom-line conclusions)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Williams v. Bennett, 921 So.2d 1269 (Miss. 2006) (premises for dismissing claims lacking essential elements under MPLA)