Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sharrieff v. DBA Automotive Two, LLC

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

April 3, 2018

MAJEEDAH SHARRIEFF, LYNNESE BUTLER, THE HEIRS AND ESTATE OF NAOMI BROWN, NUTROSALYN BUTLER AND MIQUAL BROWN APPELLANTS
v.
DBA AUTOMOTIVE TWO, LLC D/B/A LEGACY C-D-J APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/31/2016

          HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT HON. JEFF WEILL SR. TRIAL JUDGE

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN B. GSANGER MARY BARNETTE COTTON JOHN DAVIDSON

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL WAYNE BAXTER

          BEFORE IRVING, P.J., BARNES AND WILSON, JJ.

          WILSON, J.

         ¶1. Majeedah Sharrieff and four passengers were traveling north on Interstate 55 (I-55) near McDowell Road in Jackson when the left rear tire on Sharrieff's 2003 Isuzu Ascender experienced a complete tread separation. As a result of the separation, Sharrieff lost control of the vehicle, and the vehicle overturned and crashed. Sharrieff and her passengers subsequently filed suit in Hinds County Circuit Court against Michelin North America/B.F. Goodrich ("Michelin"), which manufactured the tire, and DBA Automotive Two LLC D/B/A Legacy C-D-J ("Legacy"), which sold the Isuzu to Sharrieff in 2007 and placed two new tires on the vehicle near the time of sale. The plaintiffs alleged that the Michelin tire was defectively designed and manufactured. They also alleged that Legacy negligently mounted the two new tires on the front of the vehicle and that industry safety standards required Legacy to mount the new tires on the rear of the vehicle.

         ¶2. Legacy subsequently moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motion after concluding that there was no evidence that Legacy negligently breached any duty to the plaintiffs or that any alleged breach proximately caused the plaintiffs' injuries. The plaintiffs later settled their claims against Michelin and then appealed from the judgment entered in favor of Legacy. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the circuit court that the plaintiffs failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Legacy's alleged negligence proximately caused their injuries. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court's order granting summary judgment on that ground.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶3. On March 16, 2007, Sharrieff bought a used 2003 Isuzu Ascender from Legacy, a used car dealership in Brookhaven. Near the time of the sale, Legacy replaced two of the tires on the Isuzu with new tires. Legacy mounted the two new tires on the front of the vehicle and did not replace the tires on the rear. Sharrieff did not have any issues with the car or the tires prior to the crash at issue in this case, which occurred more than two years later. During that time, Sharrieff put over 13, 000 miles on the Isuzu without rotating or changing any of the tires.

         ¶4. On May 22, 2009, Sharrieff and the other plaintiffs were traveling on I-55 North in Jackson near McDowell Road when the Isuzu's rear left tire experienced a complete tread separation. The tread separation caused the Isuzu to pull to the left, and Sharrieff responded by steering right. However, the tread separation caused the vehicle to "oversteer, " meaning that it was more sensitive to steer inputs and harder for the driver to control. As a result, Sharrieff lost control of the vehicle, and the vehicle overturned before coming to rest off the right side of the interstate.

         ¶5. The plaintiffs subsequently filed suit against Michelin and Legacy in circuit court. As to Legacy, they alleged that the new Michelin tires should have been placed on the rear of the vehicle rather than on the front.[1] The plaintiffs hired two accident reconstruction experts and one tire expert. When asked to identify the proximate cause of the crash, all three experts identified the tread separation and blamed Michelin.

         ¶6. Legacy filed for summary judgment, arguing (1) that no law or regulation required a car dealer to place better tires on a vehicle's rear wheels and (2) that there was no evidence to show that its placement of the new tires on the front of the vehicle proximately caused the plaintiffs' injuries. In response, the plaintiffs argued that all of the experts, including Legacy's own expert, agreed that newer, better tires should be placed on the rear of a vehicle. The plaintiffs also argued that Legacy's negligent placement of the new tires contributed to the oversteer condition, which caused the crash and their injuries.

         ¶7. The circuit court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to either negligence or proximate causation. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Legacy. After the plaintiffs ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.