Opinion ID: 1788754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cheap Shot

Text: The complaint was filed November 8, 1985. On December 19 a petition was filed to remove the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, and with it an answer raising numerous defenses. The answer denied the axle was defective. General Motors had not had the time or opportunity to examine the damaged vehicle prior to December 19, the date of filing its answer. It did examine the vehicle some time in 1986, and throughout trial maintained the axle was not defective. The denial in the answer was the position General Motors consistently maintained throughout. On cross-examination Chiddester was asked: Q. Why, sir, would General Motors file a formal answer in this case, without any investigation, denying that this axle failed in normal use? BY MR. YERGER: Now, we object to that. That is a legal matter and not a matter involved in this particular area as to this expert. It's a matter that is a legal decision that is made, and is improper for him to go into that particular point as to why the answer was filed, of denial, and it speaks for itself. Plaintiffs' counsel then argued that Chiddester was a representative of General Motors under Rule 30(b)(6). Defense counsel attempted to protest, but the court responded: BY THE COURT: So what? Number one, I don't know what difference it would make, but number two, I don't necessarily see the direct relevance whatsoever. The question here is can they be impeached because this individual spoke as General Motors, and apparently, they are trying to get an inconsistent position taken by Mr. General Motors. (Emphasis added.) [7] BY MR. YERGER: Your Honor, there has been no inconsistent position taken here. The position is  BY THE COURT: That's your judgment. We will see whether the jury has a different judgment. Overruled. (Emphasis added.) What is an attorney representing a defendant to do? He has a limited time to plead, the due date of the answer frequently being  as here  before there has been an opportunity to get all the facts of the case. Yet, if he denies, even though his subsequent investigation proves the denial was completely accurate, his client can still be chastised in court for the attorney's filing a general denial prior to knowing all the facts. The brazen unfairness of this can be seen by reversing the situation. Let us suppose that when Mr. or Mrs. (or both) Jackson were testifying, on cross-examination they had been asked why they alleged in their complaint that the axle broke before the Jimmy turned over when their own expert Marcosky said it did not? Suppose they had been further asked if it was not true that their court counsel were the third or fourth set of lawyers they had employed? And, finally, why was it that they would continue to solemnly allege the axle had broken before impact when they never got an expert to say so until six months before trial, and some three years after they had filed their lawsuit? This was a very cheap shot by a lawyer who certainly knew better, and condoned by a judge who should have known better. Add to this the judge again injected himself into the case. [8]