Opinion ID: 1788754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: refusal to allow john marcosky to testify as a defense witness

Text: From the time the complaint was filed and the cause went to trial, plaintiffs changed lawyers and experts. The complaint was filed November 8, 1986, by Cliff Finch, attorney of Batesville, and Harry M. Philo, of the law firm of Philo, Atkinson, Steinberg, White, Vigliotti and Keenan of Detroit, Michigan. On October 8, 1987, Stanley L. White of the Detroit firm responded to GM's motion to compel answers to interrogatories to the plaintiffs. On November 21, 1987, White supplemented plaintiffs' answer to interrogatories, and named as their designated expert David Felbeck, a professor at the University of Michigan. Answers to interrogatories also stated that Roy Wilcox, a professor at Auburn University, had examined the axle. Cliff Finch died, and the law firm of Bagley, Bailey and Henning of Batesville appeared as Mississippi counsel for the plaintiffs in White's answers to interrogatories February 3, 1988. On July 15, 1988, White again supplemented plaintiffs' answers to interrogatories, named John Marcosky of Southfield, Michigan, as plaintiffs' expert to testify in the trial of the case, stating that he would testify as an accident reconstructionist and that the axle broke prior to the GMC Jimmy overturning. Vol. III, 390. On April 25, 1989, the Philo firm moved to withdraw as counsel, White advising the court that the reason he was withdrawing as counsel for plaintiffs was because Marcosky's opinion was that the axle shaft fracture was caused by impact rather than a defect. Clerk's Papers, Vol. III, 480. On May 9, 1988, there was an order permitting the Philo firm to withdraw as counsel. [1] The defense sought to depose Marcosky, and plaintiffs moved for a protective order. The circuit judge denied the motion. Clerk's Papers, III, 519. In his deposition taken June 12, 1989, Marcosky clearly and unequivocally gave as his opinion that the axle broke because of an impact during the rollover of the vehicle. Excerpts of Marcosky's deposition follow: A... . After a review of that material, I wanted to inspect any other parts which they had of the vehicle, and he [Dr. Felbeck] indicated that the wheel-tire assembly was available, and so we went out and looked at that, and  Q. What did you find when you saw the wheel-tire assembly? A. Well, the thing that stands out in my mind concerning that inspection was that upon examination of the wheel and tire assembly, the mounting flange for the wheel was deformed and that's the flange which mounts to the axle assembly. Q. How was it deformed? A. As if a torsional load was placed across the axle, essentially along the longitudinal axis of the axle shaft or a bending load which would be applied through the tire-rim assembly to bend the axle. Q. Can you tell us in layman's terms what this means? A. Well, it means that the rim has been bent at the mounting flange, and in order to do that, a load has to be applied to the wheel to cause this deformation, and this can happen in several ways and examine each way and see what effect it might have on the axle shaft and the performance of the vehicle if it is bent. Q. Can you take this sheet of paper and just roughly sketch the components that you examined and their relation to each other? A. Sure. Q. Would you do so? A. Yes. ... . A. What I did was resolve this inspection in the presence of Dr. Felbeck and Mr. White was to explain to them how the flange can be bent. Q. How can a flange be bent? A. It has to be bent by a force applied to some part of the circumference, partial circumference, of the tire-rim assembly, which is met with a resistive force of the axle shaft. I indicated to them that this could occur by sliding into a curb, into some depressed area which would put a [side] force on the tire-rim assembly, some object that would impart a lateral force or side force on the tire-rim assembly. That can include several dynamics of the vehicle during a collision or an accident sequence, but I indicated to them that the only way that you can bend a flange is if it's attached to something which offers resistive force such as the axle shaft, and that if the axle shaft is fractured prior to any force applied to the wheel-tire assembly, you can't bend the flange. So I examined with them the types of forces that would be encountered in cornering or in turning maneuvers on the roadway, and I indicated to them that the forces during normal driving would not be sufficient to bend the flange and, therefore, understanding the amount of deformation that was experienced in this flange, I indicated to them that sliding into a curb or hitting a curb or some object to bend the rim at the mounting flange would prohibit the operation of the vehicle on the roadway because the tire would just wobble so much that you couldn't drive it. Therefore, the only other way that this flange could be bent was during the rollover sequence where the axle was still attached to the flange, still attached to the rest of the axle into the axle housing and the differential assembly, and that a force is applied to the side of the rim causing it to be deformed and subsequently, fracturing the axle shaft. That's the explanation and the scenario we went through in the analysis of how the flange could be bent. ... . Q. (BY MR. SMITH) Do you have an opinion as to the point in the accident that the axle shaft actually fractured? A. Yes. Q. What is that opinion? A. Well, it was during the roll sequence and it would be where the left rear wheel would come in contact with the road surface during a rollover and with the vehicle attitude such that the rear of the vehicle would be pitched down or the front of the vehicle would be pitched up. ... . Q. Do you have an opinion as to the cause of the fracture of the axle shaft in the vehicle that is the subject of this litigation? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is that opinion? A. The axle shaft fractured during the roll sequence when the vehicle apparently was airborne and contact was made to the left rear tire and the road surface resulting in deformation to the rim assembly and fracture of the axle shaft. Q. Mr. Marcosky, is this the opinion that you gave Mr. Stan White? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Is this the opinion that you gave Dr. Felbeck? A. Yes, sir. Q. At the time you gave this opinion to Mr. Stan White, the counsel for the plaintiff at that time, were you under his employ? A. Yes, sir. ... . A. The deformed section I saw was the flange of the wheel rim and it would  I will draw a little sketch over here. It would kind of take an attitude like this. It would be bent in this manner, so you would get a moment in it like this created by this force down here. This is a force, so it would put a moment or a bending force into the axle like that, and, of course, if your axle comes out here like that, you can see it's going to fracture at this location right here. Q. Would you note fracture there? A. All right. ... . A. I am not going to change my opinion because the facts scientifically and from a mechanical engineer's and a vehicle dynamics point of view only can give you one conclusion. ... . Q. And is that basically the reason that you didn't charge them for your work on this particular case? A. No, not at all. I didn't charge them because I thought that this situation should have been discovered early. My time was just a few hours at the inspection, plus reviewing it, and I just said: Stan, just forget about it. I think if I would have seen this very early on, it would have been been [sic] over within an hour. Q. What do you mean it would have been over in an hour? A. Once I would have seen the evidence, I would have just said: Stan, there is no case here, and I don't think he would have proceeded. I just didn't feel justified in charging him for something which to me was so obvious. (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs obtained other attorneys and employed new expert witnesses, and on January 17, 1990, plaintiffs moved to preclude Marcosky from testifying at trial. The court granted the motion March 2, 1990. Although Marcosky had been listed by plaintiffs as the expert who was expected to testify at trial, the court ruled that he was a non-testifying expert under Rule 26(b)(4)(B), Miss.R.Civ. Proc., and would not be called as a witness by the opposing party. Vol. VIII, 1460. Following this ruling both General Motors and Grenada Sales moved for a Rule 5(a) Miss.S.Ct. interlocutory appeal. This also was denied by the March 12, 1990, order of the circuit court. General Motors and Grenada Sales on March 26, 1990, filed a joint petition for an interlocutory appeal with this Court to determine whether Marcosky should be permitted to testify. We denied the petition per curiam May 9, 1990. In the pre-trial order GM and Grenada Sales both listed Marcosky as a witness who would be called live or by deposition. In the pre-trial conference May 9, 1990, the deposition of Marcosky was offered for identification, marked, and made a part of the record. The circuit judge ruled that he would not allow the deposition or live testimony of Marcosky. During trial, Vol. XXIV, 1832, General Motors made a proffer of the deposition testimony on file with the court, by deposition or live. The court stated that its previous ruling would stand. The court also refused proffered instruction D-40 which would have permitted the jury to draw an adverse inference from plaintiffs' failure to call Marcosky as an expert. Plaintiffs in closing argument attacked the credibility of GM's experts, Reynolds and Chiddester, because they were not independent experts, but employees and consultants of GM: Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Chiddester are both GM career men, and I think it's worth it to say that. It's worth it to me to say it, for sure. That's a part of what you consider. They worked for GM for most of their business lives. They still work for GM, ladies and gentlemen. They draw a check every month from GM. Most of their business, although they are retired, they get their business from GM. They have a vested interest in this case and in every GM case. They are GM guys. They are going to always find GM is doing right. On appeal plaintiffs' counsel remind us that Reynolds and Chiddester were long term employees of GM at the time the `investigated' the subject accident, that Reynolds was a GM stockholder, and these were biased witnesses. Plaintiffs' Brief, p. 13.