WIXLIB

E-Filed DocumentDec 13 2016 14:01:472015-CA-01886Pages: 44IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI2015-CA-01886HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ANDHYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANYDEFENDANTS-APPELLANTSv.OLA MAE APPLEWHITE, ET AL.PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEESAppealed from the Circuit Court of Coahoma CountyAPPELLEES’ BRIEFORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDRalph E. ChapmanDana J. SwanSara B. RussoCHAPMAN, LEWIS & SWAN PLLCP.O. Box 428Clarksdale, Mississippi 38614Telephone: (662) 627-4105sara@chapman-lewis-swan.comDennis C. Sweet, IIISWEET & ASSOCIATES PLLCP.O. Box 1178Jackson, Mississippi 39201Telephone: (601) ys for Ola Mae Applewhite, Ceola Wade and Kenneth Cordell Carter

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPIOLA MAE APPLEWHITE, ET AL.PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEESV.NO. 2015-CA-01886HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ANDHYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANYDEFENDANTS-APPELLANTSCERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONSThe undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interestin the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the justices of the SupremeCourt or the judges of the Court of Appeals may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal:1.Ola Mae Applewhite, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and WrongfulDeath Beneficiaries of Dorothy Mae Applewhite;2.Kenneth Cordell Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and WrongfulDeath Beneficiaries of Cecilia Cooper;3.Ceola Wade, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and Wrongful DeathBeneficiaries of Anthony J. Stewart;4.Ralph E. Chapman, Sara Russo, Dana J. Swan, Chapman, Lewis & Swan, Clarksdale,Mississippi, Counsel for Plaintiffs;5.Dennis Sweet, Sweet and Associates, Jackson, Mississippi, Counsel for Plaintiffs;6.Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company;7.Thomas N. Vanderford, Jr., Assistant General Counsel for Hyundai Motor America;8.J. Collins Wohner and the law firm of Watkins & Eager, PLLC, Jackson, Mississippi,Counsel for Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company;9.Robert W. Maxwell and the law firm of Bernard Cassisa, Elliott & Davis, Metaire,Louisiana, Counsel for Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company;10.Kevin C. Newsom, Michael J. Bentley, and the law firm of Bradley Arant BoultCummings LLP, attorneys for Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai MotorCompany;ii

11.Walter E. McGowan and the law firm of Gray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan, Gray, andNathanson, attorneys for Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company;12.Bill Luckett and the Luckett Tyner Law Firm, P.A., attorneys for Hyundai MotorAmerica and Hyundai Motor Company;13.Alecia Shavonne Applewhite, daughter of Dorothy Mae Applewhite;14.Brandon O’Keith Applewhite, son of Dorothy Mae Applewhite;15.Latisha Kiara Applewhite, daughter of Dorothy Mae Applewhite;16.De’ Jazhane Carter, daughter of Cecilia Cooper;17.Honorable Alfred B. Smith, trial judge.So certified, this the 13th day of December 2016.Respectfully submitted,s/Ralph E. ChapmanRalph E. ChapmanAn Attorney for Plaintiffsiii

TABLE OF CONTENTSSTATEMENT OF ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4I.II.There is legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict and the judgment ofthe trial court should be affirmed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A.Appellees’/Plaintiffs’ expert, Micky Gilbert, provided reliable testimony andevidence that the Hyundai Excel was traveling at 18 mph at impact. . . . . 5B.Appellees’/Plaintiffs’ expert, James Mundo, provide reliable expert testimonythat the Hyundai Excel was defectively designed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13C.Hyundai is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is noSupreme Court mandate for the Plaintiffs to circumvent. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19The verdict was not infected by multiple prejudicial errors in the conduct of the trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22A.The trial court did not err in excluding Hyundai’s evidence that the Excel’soccupants were not seat-belted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23B.Evidence of Hyundai’s photographs of other vehicles that split apart wereproperly excluded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24C.By failing to object to the venire procedure prior to impaneling the jury,Hyundai has waived any objection to the venire. Nor was there any influenceon the jury panel by Bishop Cary Sparks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26D.The jury properly allocated no fault to Applewhite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASESButler v. Chrestman,264 So. 2d 812 (Miss. 1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 23City of Jackson v. Estate of Stewart ex rel. Womack,48 So. 3d 502 (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,509 U.S. 579 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passimDedeaux Utility Co., Inc. v. City of Gulfport,63 So. 3d 514 (2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 21Dedeaux Utility Co., Inc. v. City of Gulfport,938 So. 2d 838 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20Ekornes-Duncan v. Rankin Med. Ctr.,808 So. 2d 955 (Miss. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 37Estate of Hunter v. General Motor Corp.,729 So. 2d 1264 (Miss. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 23, 34Frierson v. Delta Outdoor, Inc.,794 So. 2d 220, 223 (Miss. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 22Holiday Motor Corp. v. Walters,790 S.E.2d 447 (Va. 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17Hunter v. State,684 So. 2d 625 (Miss. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Hyundai Motor Co. v. Applewhite,53 So. 3d 749 (Miss. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passimIrby v. Travis,935 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Jones v. Panola County,725 So. 2d 774 (Miss. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 23Mack Truck, Inc., v. Tackett,841 So. 2d 1107 (Miss. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4v

Miss. Transp. Com'n v. McLemore,863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 13Moeller v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co.,812 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Moore v. State,816 So. 2d 1022 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Page v. Siemens Energy,728 So. 2d 1075 (Miss. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27Pittman v. Miss. Power & Light Co.,368 So. 2d 238 (Miss. 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Roach v. State,116 So. 3d 126 (Miss. 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Foster,107 So. 3d 149 (Miss. 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Walker v. State,91 So. 2d 548 (Miss. 1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27White v. Stewman,932 So. 2d 27 (Miss.2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 21Williams v. City of Cleveland,848 F. Supp. 2d 646 (N.D. Miss. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28STATUTESMiss. Code Ann. §11-1-63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Miss. Code Ann. §13-5-87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Miss. Code Ann. §63-2-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23RULESMiss. Rule of Evid. 702. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13vi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPIHYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ANDHYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANYDEFENDANTS-APPELLANTSV.NO. 2015-CA-01886OLA MAE APPLEWHITE, ET AL.PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEESSTATEMENT OF ISSUESAppellant Hyundai has identified numerous issues on appeal to which the Appellees haveresponded.STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENTThe Appellees join in the request for oral argument.STATEMENT OF THE CASEThis is a products liability suit arising out of an automobile accident which occurred betweena 1993 Lincoln Continental and a 1993 Hyundai Excel in Tunica County Mississippi which occurredon or about July 9, 1995. The Plaintiffs’ deceased Dorothy Mae Applewhite, Cecilia Cooper, andAnthony Stewart where occupants in the Hyundai, which split into three pieces during the collision.The Plaintiffs brought suit in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi alleging enhancedinjuries resulting in their deaths.The first trial was held from March 24, 2008 to April 3, 2008 and resulting in a verdict of 4.5 million dollars. On February 10, 2011, this Honorable Court reversed and remanded for adiscovery violation in Applewhite I. Upon retrial from September 15, 2014 to September 26, 2014,the jury returned a verdict of 10.5 million. From that verdict, this appeal was taken.STATEMENT OF FACTSA concise statement of facts by the Plaintiffs is as follows:1