Camp v. General Motors Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 July 1984 |
| Parties | John D. CAMP v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. 82-797. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William W. Smith of Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh, Birmingham, for appellant.
B. Lynn Enderby and Judith A. Zakens, General Motors Corp., Detroit, Mich., and Charles A. Stewart, Jr. and Frank E. Lankford, Jr. of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a products liability case brought under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD). John D. Camp appeals from the judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation (GM) and asserts as error the trial court's refusal to excuse his expert witness from the rule requiring sequestration of witnesses.
Camp was injured when the automobile which he was driving, a 1978 Chevrolet Monza, left the road as a result of an alleged steering malfunction and struck a tree. Camp filed an AEMLD action against GM, the manufacturer; Colonial Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., the retailer; and six fictitious defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants manufactured, assembled, furnished, sold, or supplied him with a motor vehicle with defective steering and that this defective condition caused all of his injuries and concomitant damages. Camp subsequently amended his complaint, striking the retailer as a party defendant and adding a second count which alleged that prior to his accident, GM had knowledge of a steering lock-up problem caused by the presence of foreign particles in car steering systems similar to that on Camp's automobile, and that GM's failure to recall his car to properly filter the steering system warranted the recovery of punitive damages.
In the jury trial which followed, the rule was invoked and Camp's expert witness was not allowed to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses. The rule, however, did not apply to the expert witness for GM, who was also a representative of that defendant and therefore was allowed to sit at the defendants' table throughout the trial. After a jury verdict in favor of GM, Camp moved for a new trial on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to excuse Camp's expert witness from the rule. The motion was denied, and this appeal ensued.
Camp seeks to have this Court adopt a sequestration rule that is essentially the same as Rule 615(3), Fed.R.Evid. Under the federal rule, "a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christiansen v. Hall
...of the trial judge and that his decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Camp v. General Motors Corp., 454 So.2d 958 (Ala.1984). Furthermore, our case law has consistently upheld trial court rulings that allowed testimony from witnesses who were p......
-
Oates v. State Dept. of Transp.
...(Ala.1995). This decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Camp v. General Motors Corp., 454 So.2d 958, 959 (Ala.1984). The Oateses assert that, if a witness violates the exclusionary rule, a trial court is required to sanction trial coun......
-
Oates v. Nj Department of Transportation, 2010058
...1995). This decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. SeeCamp v. General Motors Corp., 454 So. 2d 958, 959 (Ala. 1984). The Oateses assert that, if a witness violates its exclusion rule, a trial court is required to sanction trial counsel or ......
-
Erben v. Erben
...Excluding or excusing witnesses from the rule is a matter left largely to the discretion of the trial court. Camp v. General Motors Corp., 454 So.2d 958 (Ala.1984) . The court's decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there is a gross abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Harrison, 404 So.......