Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McMahon v. Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 2, 2012No. 1100679Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurdock, Justice

I concur in the result reached by the main opinion as to the negligence claim asserted by Jacklyn McMahon and Donald McMahon. I respectfully dissent as to the main opinion’s conclusion that the trial court erred in not submitting to the jury the McMahons’ wantonness claim.

Before explaining the reasons for my votes on the aforesaid issues, I first take this opportunity to address the evidentiary issue discussed in Part II of the main opinion. Insofar as the main opinion reasons that a chart describing 26 fatal accidents involving the type of vehicle at issue should have been excluded on the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Abney v. Crosman Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2005
  2. Griffin v. Summit Specialties, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API