 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gladney v. Milam9/21/2005
ntative, who reported that the driver lost control of the rented van without any mention of a defective tire. Reynolds said that in April 2002, the van was appraised as a total loss, sent to a salvage yard and sold in May 2002. Reynolds stated the plaintiffs had not contacted him or anyone else at Liberty Mutual before the sale.
In support of their motion for partial summary judgment against Milam d/b/a U-Save and Empire, the plaintiffs submitted letters written by their investigator, Bennie Simmons, to the U-Save Auto Rental headquarters in Jackson, Mississippi, and to the salvage yard in Greenwell Springs, Louisiana, where the van was delivered for auction. However, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, these letters are not addressed to any of the defendants and do not show that defendants were notified that plaintiffs sought to preserve the damaged tire as evidence. In his April 25, 2002 letter to the U-Save Auto Rental office in Jackson, Simmons stated his "understanding that the U-Save Rental Car Companies are individually owned or franchised by individual owners." Despite this acknowledgment, the record does not contain any letters from Simmons to either Milam or U-Save in Shreveport concerning preservation of the tire.
Based upon this record, the plaintiffs did not offer proof that any defendant intentionally destroyed evidence to deprive them of its use. In addition, the affidavits of Milam and Reynolds provided a reasonable explanation of the circumstances surrounding the sale of the van and resulting loss of the damaged tire . Consequently, the defendants' failure to produce the tire does not give rise to the adverse presumption that the evidence would have been detrimental to their case. Thus, the record supports denial of the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the spoliation issue. The assignment of error lacks merit.
Product Liability
The plaintiffs contend the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs argue that the expert testimony and photographic evidence which they submitted was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the issue of whether the tire was defective, precluding summary judgment.
The Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) establishes the exclusive theories of liability for damage caused by manufacturers' products. LSA-R.S. 9:2800.52. A manufacturer shall be liable to a claimant for damage caused by an unreasonably dangerous product during a reasonably anticipated use. LSA-R.S. 9:2800.54; Ashley v. General Motors Corp., 27,851 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1/24/96), 666 So.2d 1320. Liability will be imposed when a product is unreasonably dangerous in (1) construction or composition, (2) design, or because of (3) an inadequate warning, or (4) nonconformity with an express warranty. LSA-R.S. 9:2800.54; Holloway, supra.
A product is unreasonably dangerous in construction if, when it left the manufacturer's control, it deviated in a material way from the manufacturer's specifications, or deviated from otherwise identical products made by the manufacturer. LSA-R.S. 9:2800.55. A product is unreasonably dangerous in design if, at the time it left the manufacturer's control, there existed an alternative design that was capable of preventing the claimant's damage and the likelihood and gravity of that damage outweighed the burden on the manufacturer of adopting the alternative design and any adverse effect on the product's utility. LSA-R.S. 9:2800.56. A claimant seeking recovery under the LPLA bears the burden of proving the existence of a defect by a preponderance of evidence. LSA-R.S. 9:2800.54(D); Ashley, supra.
Here, defendants subm
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|