Court of Appeals issues thirty-two opinions in one day
The Court of Appeals issued a record (?) thirty-two opinions today leading into the July hiatus. I have not read all thirty-two and hope Tom Freeland or Ipse Blogit beats me to it.
In Borne v. Dunlop Tire Corp. a unanimous Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment due to the fact that Plaintiff's affidavit supporting the opposition to the motion was based on hearsay and not personal knowledge. This was a products liability case involving a Ford Explorer roll-over where the Plaintiff did not have the Explorer or the other three tires on the vehicle. Judge Samac Richardson granted summary judgment because the Plaintiff could not prove that the tire that the Plaintiff did have came off the subject vehicle. The Plaintiff's attempt to satisfy this burden consisted of an affidavit from an attorney that was not based on personal knowledge.
The decision could be categorized as a mercy killing. A footnote states that the Plaintiff was able to settle with Ford Motor Co., although I can't imagine it having been for a large amount without the vehicle. Most plaintiff lawyers understand the importance of having the product at issue in a products case. Unfortunately, the actual plaintiffs sometimes let the product get away before hiring a lawyer who will secure the vehicle or other product.
