in the court of appeals of the state - Mississippi Supreme Court

warranty was limited to the original purchaser of the tires expressly stated in
the documents - -
MR. ALLRED [attorney for plaintiff Odom]: Your honor, there’s a
statute in Mississippi that says that’s not so. Privity is not a defense under the
warranty claim in Mississippi by statute.
BY THE COURT: This is going to be granted over those objections.
31. The record clearly shows that the defendants did not specifically object to the
instruction on the basis that there was no express warranty guaranteeing that the S tires
would not fail at less than 50,000 miles or at speeds of 112 miles per hour or below. Nor did
the defendants’ stated objections mention the S tire’s speed rating or representations made
to the purchaser of the tire. Instead, what is stated by the defendants are generalized
objections. Therefore, we find that Goodyear has failed to preserve this issue for appeal
since it failed to object to the instruction upon the specific ground it is now raising on appeal.
Fitch, 959 So. 2d at 1023 (28) (citing Shields v. Easterling, 676 So. 2d 293, 296 (Miss.
1996) ("Shields did not put this objection to the trial court in any specific meaningful
manner. Thus, the trial judge had no opportunity to rule on it. . . . Thus, this Court is barred
from reviewing this issue.").
32. We find this argument to be procedurally barred as Goodyear did not put its objection
to Instruction No. 7 in “any specific meaningful manner” that gave the trial judge an
opportunity to rule on the objection and instead is trying to use the instruction now to
bootstrap its argument that there was insufficient evidence for a breach-of-warranty
instruction.
18