Keller said this indicated to him that the latch mechanism had engaged at different places on the striker bolt. Keller stated that the driver's side striker bolt, as compared to the striker bolt on the passenger door, had one or two additional shims and had two separate wear patterns, as opposed to one on the passenger side. He explained that the word "defective" excludes parts which had been abraded or otherwise damaged by external factors. He testified he found no defective parts which would cause the door to fail and come open. He testified that he worked on the car for two or three days in July, 1985, and test drove it on all types of roads and was never able to get the door to come all the way open, including when he tried to force it open. Mike Keller, assistant technical director of American Interplex Corp., was Williams' expert witness. Williams also offered the testimony of her mother, her sister, and a friend that they rode in the car before and after the accident and noticed that the door would work loose. She sold the car some fourteen months later. The door, however, continued to work loose, but it never came open again. She returned the car to Smart to be fixed. Immediately after the accident, Williams noticed that the driver's door latch mechanism had one of the three securing screws hanging partially *481 out. The car went into a ditch but was not damaged. Williams said she fell out of the car, injuring herself. On October 4, 1984, Williams was driving about 10 miles per hour down a straight, level, gravel road when her door, which she testified she specifically remembered shutting and locking with the power locks, suddenly came open. Smart returned the car to her and, according to Williams, told her the car was fixed. She returned the car to Smart for repairs and told them about the problem with the door. Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to Williams, there was testimony by Williams that she purchased her new Chevrolet Camaro Z-28 from Smart on September 12, 1984, and noticed after a few days that the driver's side door was difficult to close and would work loose after being shut and locked. Bare conclusions without supporting facts, are not substantial evidence. It must force or induce the mind to pass beyond a suspicion or conjecture. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will compel a conclusion one way or another. The granting of the motion is upheld only if the evidence viewed in that light would be so insubstantial as to require that a jury verdict for the party be set aside. When a directed verdict has been granted, on appeal we take that view of the evidence that is most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was granted and give it its highest probative value, taking into account all reasonable inferences deducible from it. Williams argues on appeal that there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury the questions of negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and strict liability for the manufacture, design, material, assembly and repair of the automobile door, door latch mechanism and component parts. It is from that order that this appeal is brought.
#SMARTS CHEVROLET PINE BLUFF ARKANSAS TRIAL#
The trial court granted both appellees' motions for directed verdicts at the close of Williams' proof. She filed a lawsuit against appellee Smart Chevrolet Co., from whom she bought the car, and against appellee General Motors Corp., the manufacturer of the car, on product liability and tort theories. Williams, was driving her new car when the door swung open and she fell out, injuring herself. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings by James Moody, Barber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale by Robert L.
0 kommentar(er)
