328 So.3d 592
Miss.2021Background
- Single-vehicle crash (Dec. 17, 2005) in a rented 2005 Hyundai Santa Fe; driver Derek Bell and passenger Joyce Hutton injured when vehicle ran into median and rolled multiple times.
- Plaintiffs’ theory: an unseen metal object struck and temporarily dislodged the front-right ABS tone ring, causing the ABS to send erratic signals and produce asymmetric braking that caused the loss of control.
- Hyundai’s defense: driver error while passing a delivery truck caused the crash; the "phantom object" theory was unsupported, scientifically implausible (events would have occurred within milliseconds), and contradicted scene photos and testimony.
- Plaintiffs presented two experts: Charles Miller (automotive mechanic) and Dr. John Rinker (mechanical engineer/metallurgist); trial court admitted both over Hyundai’s Daubert/MRE 702 objections. Plaintiffs also introduced evidence of Hyundai’s later (2008) design change.
- Jury awarded plaintiffs (Hutton and Bell) a multimillion-dollar verdict (later remitted); trial court denied JMOL/JNOV and new-trial motions. Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Hyundai, finding reversible errors including exclusion of impeachment, unreliable expert testimony, and improper venire procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Hyundai could cross-examine Hutton about her earlier suit against Bell | Hutton argued Rule 408 bars admission of settlement evidence and the fact of suing Bell | Hyundai sought impeachment to show inconsistent blame and to inform jury for apportionment among tortfeasors | Court: exclusion of impeachment was error; defendants should have been allowed to impeach Hutton (reversible error) |
| 2) Admissibility of experts Miller and Rinker under Daubert / MRE 702 | Plaintiffs: Miller (mechanic) and Rinker (engineer/metallurgist) were qualified and their methods supported the design-defect causation theory | Hyundai: experts lacked relevant qualifications, used unreliable/speculative methodology, and failed to apply testing, calculations, or peer-reviewed support | Court: Miller and Rinker testimony unreliable/ speculative and should have been excluded under Rule 702/Daubert; exclusion error warranted reversal and judgment for Hyundai |
| 3) Jury venire procedures and representative cross-section | Plaintiffs: court administrator’s handling of excuse affidavits was proper; Hyundai waived challenge by not timely objecting | Hyundai: clerk/administrator excused many jurors without judge’s mandated findings, producing demographic skew and statutory violations | Court: venire-selection procedures violated statutory requirements; public-interest review warranted; Court admonished compliance (but reversal rested on other errors) |
| 4) Admission of subsequent remedial measures (2008 ABS shields) | Plaintiffs: evidence admissible to show feasibility of an alternative design (exception to Rule 407) | Hyundai: stipulation to feasibility and Rule 407 forbid using later fixes to prove defect/negligence | Court: declined to decide on this issue because reversal and rendition were already appropriate on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping test for expert admissibility; focus on methodology not conclusions)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert principles apply to all expert testimony; gatekeeping discretion)
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (applying Daubert factors in Mississippi and outlining reliability/qualification inquiry)
- Smith v. Payne, 839 So. 2d 482 (Miss. 2002) (jury may be informed a plaintiff previously sued a co-defendant when apportioning fault)
- Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton, 94 So. 3d 1051 (Miss. 2012) (elements of a design-defect products-liability claim)
- Adams v. State, 537 So. 2d 891 (Miss. 1989) (right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community)
- Page v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 728 So. 2d 1075 (Miss. 1999) (public confidence requires guarding against appearance of unfairness in jury trials)