Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gomes v. Mossberg Industries, Inc.
Citations: 762 A.2d 1196; 2000 R.I. LEXIS 218; 2000 WL 1810013Docket: No. 98-580-Appeal
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; December 10, 2000; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court
Fernandinho P. Gomes appeals a judgment as a matter of law against him in a product liability personal injury case involving Mossberg Industries, Inc. The appeal was reviewed after a prebriefing order required the parties to justify why it should not be summarily decided. The court concluded there was no cause shown to proceed otherwise and dismissed Gomes's appeal. The case stems from a January 23, 1992 incident where Gomes, an employee of Hope Webbing, Inc., sustained severe injuries when his arm became entangled in a motorized drive shaft. In August 1994, Gomes sued Mossberg, claiming it designed, manufactured, and sold a defective drive shaft to Hope Webbing. He asserted Mossberg was strictly liable for his injuries, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In October 1998, Gomes amended his complaint to allege that the drive shaft was provided by New England Butt Company, claiming Mossberg was liable as its successor. At trial, Gomes did not attend, being out of the country. Key witness testimonies failed to substantiate his claims. Notably, a former plant manager testified that Hope Webbing never purchased the drive shaft from New England Butt Company, and another engineer affirmed that the drive shaft in question had never been manufactured or distributed by New England Butt Company. The evidence presented ultimately did not support Gomes's claims against Mossberg, leading to the dismissal of his appeal. George J. Geisser III, a civil engineer, was the final witness called by Gomes to provide expert testimony regarding the allegedly negligent design and manufacturing of a motorized drive shaft associated with braiding machines at Hope Webbing. Geisser's qualifications were challenged by Mossberg's counsel during a voir dire, where he acknowledged that his civil engineering expertise did not pertain to machinery design or manufacturing. He had conducted no investigation into the design or manufacture of the drive shaft and was unaware of industry standards from the 1930s. Geisser also admitted that his opinions would rely solely on information provided by Gomes's attorney and that he had never previously testified in similar cases. Consequently, the trial justice refused to qualify Geisser as an expert. Following this, Gomes's attorney rested the case, and Mossberg moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, which was granted after the trial justice determined that there was insufficient evidence to support Mossberg's liability. Gomes appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in excluding Geisser's testimony and granting Mossberg's motion. However, the appellate review found no evidence of liability that could lead a reasonable jury to conflicting conclusions. It was emphasized that even if Geisser's opinion were allowed, it would not assist Gomes because Mossberg had no involvement in the design or manufacture of the drive shaft. The appeal was denied, and the judgment was affirmed, with the case remanded to the Superior Court. Justice Flanders participated based on the briefs, and Gomes's attorney conceded that the braiding machines did not cause Gomes's injuries.