in the court of appeals of the state - Mississippi Supreme Court
in the court of appeals of the state - Mississippi Supreme Court
in the court of appeals of the state - Mississippi Supreme Court
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>the</strong>re was no record evidence to support any warranty’s existence so <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>struction assumed<br />
facts not <strong>in</strong> evidence.<br />
27. Jury Instruction No. 7 reads <strong>in</strong> full:<br />
You are <strong>in</strong>structed that a manufacturer or seller <strong>of</strong> a product is liable for<br />
damages caused by that product, o<strong>the</strong>r than commercial damages to <strong>the</strong><br />
product itself, if you f<strong>in</strong>d from a preponderance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence:<br />
1. That Kelly Spr<strong>in</strong>gfield/Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.<br />
was <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>of</strong> sell<strong>in</strong>g automobile tires and did <strong>in</strong> fact<br />
sell a Charger SR tire; and<br />
2. That at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> Charger SR tire left <strong>the</strong> control <strong>of</strong><br />
Kelly Spr<strong>in</strong>gfield/Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., <strong>the</strong> defendant<br />
represented that <strong>the</strong> tire would be safe at speeds up to 112 miles<br />
per hour for 50,000 miles and that <strong>the</strong> defendants’ claims<br />
amounted to an express warranty or o<strong>the</strong>r express factual<br />
representation upon which <strong>the</strong> purchaser relied <strong>in</strong> select<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Charger SR tire; and<br />
3. That <strong>the</strong> warranty or o<strong>the</strong>r expressed factual<br />
representation was breached or false, which made <strong>the</strong> product<br />
defective; and<br />
4. The defective condition rendered <strong>the</strong> product<br />
unreasonably dangerous to <strong>the</strong> user or consumer; and<br />
5. The defective and unreasonable and dangerous<br />
condition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> product was <strong>the</strong> proximate cause <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs’ damages;<br />
<strong>the</strong>n your verdict shall be for <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff.<br />
However, if <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff has failed to prove any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se elements by<br />
a preponderance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence <strong>in</strong> this case, <strong>the</strong>n your verdict shall be for <strong>the</strong><br />
defendant.<br />
28. The Kirby pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs argue that Goodyear failed to preserve <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> jury<br />
16