Evers v. General Motors Corp., No. 84-3619
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before HENDERSON and CLARK; CLARK |
| Citation | 770 F.2d 984 |
| Parties | , 19 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 198, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 10,671 Alexander EVERS, Jr., individually and as legal guardian of Marcia Evers, his wife, incompetent and a legal guardian of Selena Evers, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 84-3619 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 1985 |
Page 984
Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 10,671
Marcia Evers, his wife, incompetent and a legal
guardian of Selena Evers, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Eleventh Circuit.
Jon H. Anderson, Lane, Trohn, Bertrand & Williams, Lakeland, Fla., and Kenneth L. Connor, Lake Wales, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Richard Caldwell, Jr., Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Orlando, Fla.; Byron Attridge, King & Spalding, Gary J. Toman, Lanny B. Bridgers, Atlanta, Pa., for defendant-appellee.
Jones, Jones, Baldwin, Curry & Roth, Marshall, Tex.; Hogan, Smith, Alspaugh, Samples & Pratt, P.C., James R. Pratt, III, Birmingham, Ala., and Larry Coben, Litvin, Blumberg, Matusow & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for ATLA.
Stephen P. Teret, Baltimore, Md., for APHA & NAPHP.
Arthur H. Bryant, Washington, D.C., Emond & Vines, Birmingham, Ala., and George A. Malinsky, Tubac, Ariz., for TLPJ.
Robert R. Tiernan, Washington, D.C., for ABIC.
Edward P. Good, Detroit, Mich., for MVMA.
Page 985
Robert L. Stern, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Stephen M. Shapiro, Daniel M. Harris, Chicago, Ill., for PLAC.
Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, Cal.; Sam Kazman, David N. Baumann, Washington, D.C., for CA and PLF.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before HENDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN *, District Judge.
CLARK, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a summary judgment order entered by the district court in a products liability action.
The facts giving rise to this litigation are relatively simple and generally undisputed. The appellant was injured, on October 20, 1974, when the automobile in which she was driving was struck by a Toyota. The Toyota ran a stop sign while entering an intersection and was traveling at approximately 30-35 miles per hour at the point of collision. The appellant was operating a Grand Prix manufactured by the defendant and was traveling at approximately 45 miles per hour at the point of collision. The Toyota struck the appellant's vehicle on the left side near the driver's door. The impact of the collision caused both a crippling pelvic injury and permanent brain damage to the appellant. Appellant's liability claim can be generally categorized as alleging a defect in the passenger restraint system and a defect resulting from the appellee's failure to install an inflatable restraint system, commonly known as an "air bag."
The district court in granting summary judgment found that as to appellant's claim of defect in the seat belt system, appellant had failed to put forth any evidence that a defect existed or contributed to appellant's injuries. As to appellant's allegation of a design defect in failing to install an "air bag," the court refused to declare such a requirement as a new basis for tort liability. With regard to the latter theory, appellant offered the affidavit of Carl F. Thelin, 1 who testified that an "air bag" restraint system would probably have reduced the severity of, or prevented the appellant's injuries and, further, that in his opinion, the appellee's failure to incorporate an "air bag system" constituted a defect in the design of the automobile. The court found that the affidavit would create an issue of material fact as to the question of a design defect if the appellant's overall "air bag" theory was available as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Rouse, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1101-WHA [WO]
...verification of party's own conclusory allegations is not sufficient to oppose summary judgment...."); Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985) ("[C]onclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value."). Hence, when a plaintiff fails to ......
-
ET Barwick Industries v. Walter E. Heller & Co., Civ. A. No. C83-77R
...to a motion for summary judgment must set forth specific facts from the record to support its conclusions. Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Various Slot Machines, 658 F.2d 697, 692 F. Supp. 1347 700-01 (9th Cir.1981); Merit Motors, Inc. v. Chrysl......
-
Ginzburg v. Memorial Healthcare Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. H-96-0907.
...judgment. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. J. Truett Payne Co., Inc., 670 F.2d 575, 577 (5th Cir.1982); see also Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1985). Finally, Ginzburg herself raises the possibility of a broader geographic market by arguing that Defendants' conduct may ......
-
New York State Ophthalmological Soc. v. Bowen, s. 87-5057 and 87-5065
...unsupported expert opinion. See Merit Motors v. Chrysler Corp., 569 F.2d 666, 673 (D.C.Cir.1977); accord Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1985) ("a party may not avoid summary judgment solely on the basis of an expert's opinion that fails to provide specific facts ......
-
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, No. 89-40247-WCS.
...to defeat summary judgment). Conclusory allegations unsupported by specific facts have no probative value. Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th 3 Rehearing was denied on October 24, 1994. The status of any attempt to seek review in the Florida Supreme Court is not reflecte......
-
U.S. Ex Rel v. Ashcroft, Civil Action No. 3:04–57.
...by facts. Indeed, “conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value.” Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1985). When viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Defendants, and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, the Cour......
-
In re Macklin, Case No.: 05-12750-BGC-13 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 9/23/2009), Case No.: 05-12750-BGC-13.
...consistently held that conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value." Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985). "Bare assertions ... are insufficient to create an issue ...." Gordon v. Terry, 684 F.2d 736, 743 (11th Cir.1982), cer......
-
Barley v. Riley, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-798-WC [WO]
...where inmate produces nothing beyond "his own conclusory allegations" challenging actions of the defendants); Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985) ("[C]onclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value."); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d......