 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fillingane v. Siemens Energy & Automation2/26/2002
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 02/03/2000
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOE N. PIGOTT
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED-2/26/2002
. John Fillingane, West American Insurance Company, Southern Guaranty Insurance Co., and Hattiesburg Paint and Decorating Center, Inc. (Fillingane) appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Forrest County pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. and Cooper Industries (Siemens Energy). Fillingane assigns two errors, which we quote verbatim:
(1) Did the trial court err in ruling that plaintiffs' expert witness, an electrical engineer, could not testify regarding industry standards that were in effect before he became an electrical engineer, because he did not have personal knowledge of these standards at the time they were written?
(2) Did the court err in excluding the 1975 electrical industry standard which was inadvertently not produced in discovery, where the 1986 revision of that standard, containing identical relevant language, was produced in discovery and was, or should have been known to the defendants?
FACTS
. On September 1, 1993, a fire occurred at the premises of the Hattiesburg Paint and Decorating Center, Inc. which caused extensive damage to the premises. An investigation indicated that a circuit breaker in the building's electrical panel had failed to trip when a short developed in a small oscillating fan, and that the failure of this circuit breaker to trip and arrest the electrical current was the likely cause of the fire. John M. Fillingane, the building's owner, and West American Hattiesburg Paint, his insurance company, joined Southern Guaranty, the insurer of the building contents, in filing a products liability suit against the manufacturer of the circuit breaker.
. Fillingane sought to recover against Siemens Energy under two theories: (1) the circuit breaker was defectively designed and (2) the circuit breaker failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions.
. During trial, Fillingane presented a thirty-five year old expert witness, Dr. Mark Halpin. Dr. Halpin is a doctorate level professor of electrical engineering. During the trial, he testified to his academic and research experience in electrical engineering. He also testified to his initial involvement in this action which was to test circuit breakers and make internal inspections of molded circuit breakers. He explained how the breakers operated and identified the various parts. He also testified concerning the tripping of the breaker in question. He was able to testify about this due to the tests he had conducted. In addition, he testified that there were points or areas inside the breaker's design or in its construction which could present limitations on the mechanical movements of the parts of the breaker that would limit it or prevent it from tripping. Furthermore, he testified that a magnetic force could cause erosion of the parts. Siemens Energy objected to this testimony asserting a failure by Dr. Halpin to disclose this specific expert opinion testimony during deposition. However, the court allowed this testimony.
. After Dr. Halpin's testimony concerning the freezing and binding of the breakers, he was asked how long the information had been known in the electrical industry. He replied that based on information readily available to him, the knowledge of freezing and binding has "been well known in the industry for at least twenty years."
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|