Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of September 18, 2006

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions can be accessed by clicking the cause number then clicking View HTML Version of Opinion.

Simmons v. State, No. 02-0003-446 (Sept. 21, 2006) (Gardner, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a confidential informant's testimony must be corroborated by other evidence. Although other, circumstantial evidence corroborated the informant's testimony, the jury could have disbelieved the corroborating evidence and, if properly instructed, disregarded the informant's testimony, which was essential to the State's case. Thus, the trial court's failure to properly instruct the jury resulted in egregious harm to Appellant.
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Burry, No. 02-0005-216 (Sept. 21, 2006) (op. on reh'g.) (Livingston, J., joined by Dauphinot and Holman, JJ.).: Held: Opinion of June 29, 2006 withdrawn and new opinion substituted to make a nonsubstantive clarification. Evidence is legally sufficient to support jury verdict finding GM forty-nine percent liable for Appellee Stacey Burry's injuries that occurred in a traffic collision in which she was a passenger in a 2001 Chevy Suburban. The evidence showed that although the Suburban had a passenger side airbag, it did not deploy, it should have deployed in this type of accident, the addition of a second airbag sensor to the Suburban would have caused the airbag to deploy, and deployment of the airbag would have prevented Stacey's brain injuries. Appellees' experts were qualified and their testimony on the existence of a design defect, a safer alternative design, and causation, was reliable and not conclusory, speculative, or based on faulty assumptions. Additionally, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support all damages awarded by the jury except the award of bystander damages to Stacey's daughters; although they were in the Suburban when the accident occurred, there was no evidence regarding their reactions to the collision itself.