Court Opinion

ID: 9591657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:06:20.93851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:54.374289
License: Public Domain

CARRICO, C.J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On December 6, 1978, Roy Harper, Jr., was injured when a tire blew out on the truck he was operating, causing the vehicle to crash into an embankment. Harper brought this personal injury action against B & W Bandag Center, Inc. (Bandag), alleging that Bandag had improperly recapped the tire for Harper’s employer, Lone Star Industries, Inc.
A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Bandag, and the trial court confirmed the verdict. The sole question presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing Harper’s Instruction No. 11, which would have told the jury:
The Court instructs the jury that the unexplained failure of a party to produce a material witness raises a presumption that the testimony of such witness would have been adverse to the party thus failing to produce him.
The central issue at trial was whether the tire in question blew out because of improper recapping by Bandag or as a result of impact failure, for which Bandag was not responsible. On this issue, the parties’ attention focused on the presence of a cut in the inner lining of the tire, found after the accident. Expert witnesses for both sides testified that had this cut been present at the time of the recapping procedure, the tire should have been rejected and not recapped for the use intended by Lone Star.
*471In an attempt to establish that the cut was present during the recapping procedure, Harper showed that, when the tire was examined after the accident, a straight yellow crayon mark was found alongside the cut. Harper then called Richard W. Brockwell, president of Bandag, as an adverse witness. Brockwell testified that Bandag employed inspectors to examine tire casings and that, in the inspection process, a yellow or white crayon is used to “mark whatever defects [the inspectors] may see.”
Called later as a witness for Bandag, Brockwell testified that his firm used “standard” markings to indicate defects in tires and that a straight line was not standard. A straight line, Brockwell said, was “not the type of mark [he had] ever used in any recapping shop.”
Brockwell also testified that his company employed three inspectors at the time the tire in question was recapped. One inspector examined a tire when it came into the shop, another made a final examination, and the third, the shop foreman, made periodic examinations “all during the day.” At the time of trial, the first two inspectors had left Bandag’s employment, and they were not further identified; however, the shop foreman, Harry Smith, remained employed by Bandag. Although Bandag subpoenaed Smith, it did not call him as a witness at trial.
Harper argues that Bandag’s failure to call Smith supported the granting of Instruction No. 11. According to Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565, 211 S.E.2d 100 (1975), Harper points out, the “missing witness” instruction should be granted where the party requesting the instruction establishes a prima facie case that the absent witness is available and that his or her testimony would be material. Harper says he established both these elements and, hence, was entitled to the instruction.
We agree that the availability of the missing witness, Smith, was established. We disagree, however, that the materiality of his testimony was established.
Materiality in this context means that the person’s testimony has “a certain or probable bearing on the proper determination of’ the case. The testimony of a possible witness which is “for any reason comparatively unimportant, or cumulative, or inferior to what is already utilized, might well be dispensed with by a party on general grounds of expense *472and inconvenience, without any apprehension [that the inference would be drawn].”
Id. at 574, 211 S.E.2d at 108 (citations omitted).
We believe that the present case fails the Neeley materiality test because there is no indication that the testimony of the missing witness, Smith, would have been anything but cumulative. Brockwell, although employed by Bandag in an executive capacity, displayed on the witness stand complete familiarity with the recapping procedures in Bandag’s shop; he testified fully concerning the markings utilized in the shop to indicate defects in tires, and he was emphatic in stating that a straight line is never used. In addition, Robert M. Hill, an expert witness called by Bandag, testified that the mark found in the tire in question “isn’t the kind of mark you put on in a retreading shop when you are indicating a defect in the tire.” Hill said further, “You circle it, you don’t underline it.”
Furthermore, Instruction No. 11 suffers from the same internal vice as the instruction we considered and found wanting in Neeley;* the instruction is general in terms and does not identify the missing witness from whose absence adverse inferences may be drawn. Although the evidence identified Smith and established his availability, no evidence was presented concerning the identity or the availability of the other two inspectors employed in Ban-dag’s shop at the time the tire in question was recapped. Yet, in its unrestricted form, Instruction No. 11 would have permitted the jury to draw adverse inferences not only from the absence of Smith but also, and quite improperly, from the absence of the other two inspectors.
For the reasons assigned, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing Instruction No. 11. Accordingly, the court’s judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

 Neeley was a personal injury case. Over a period of approximately two and one-half years, the plaintiff was seen by at least fifteen physicians, but only four testified. Instruction E, granted in that case, was as general-in its terms as the instruction granted here. Reversing, we said, inter alia, that under “Instruction E in its unrestricted form [the jury] could have improperly applied the [adverse] presumption to all the absent doctors, including those who may have been out of the jurisdiction, dead, or ill.” 215 Va. at 575, 211 S.E.2d at 108.