From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mathis v. Gen. Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 26, 1990
571 So. 2d 290 (Ala. 1990)

Opinion

89-1301.

October 26, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Madison County, No. CV-88-2381, Joseph L. Battle, J.

Marcella A. Mathis, Birmingham, for appellant.

De Martenson and Christopher S. Rodgers of Huie, Fernambucq Stewart, Birmingham, for appellee.


The plaintiff in this case, Marcella A. Mathis, sued General Motors Corporation ("G.M."), alleging defective design of the rear window of the trucks it manufactures. This action followed the death of her husband as a result of a single-vehicle accident. The trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of G.M. after it offered affidavits indicating that the design of the truck window was reasonably safe for its intended use, and that the truck met all of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when it left the G.M. plant. We affirm.

The decedent, Willie A. Mathis, was driving a 1978 GMC 3/4-ton pickup truck when, according to the complaint filed by Mrs. Mathis, he had a seizure that threw his head backward into the rear window and caused him to lose control of his truck. Mrs. Mathis contends that as a result of the impact with the rear window her husband wrecked the truck and was injured and was in a coma until his death. Mrs. Mathis alleged that the design and placement of the rear window were defective. Although G.M. offered two affidavits, which were sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the design was not defective, Mrs. Mathis offered nothing concerning the allegedly defective design of the window other than her own allegations thereof. This is simply not the "substantial evidence" required to withstand a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the summary judgment was proper. See Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P.

Mrs. Mathis further contends that the trial judge erred in denying her motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), A.R.Civ.P. We have examined the record and conclude that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in denying that motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, concur.


Summaries of

Mathis v. Gen. Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 26, 1990
571 So. 2d 290 (Ala. 1990)
Case details for

Mathis v. Gen. Motors Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Marcella W. MATHIS, as administratrix of the estate of Willie Mathis…

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Oct 26, 1990

Citations

571 So. 2d 290 (Ala. 1990)

Citing Cases

Brewer v. Woodall

Id. at 519-20. See also Mathis v. General Motors Corp., 571 So.2d 290, 291 (Ala. 1990) (plaintiff's own…