Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
04-61040•Stevenson v. Continental Eagle, et al
04-61040Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit01.03.2006
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 1, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 04-61040
_____________________
DONNIE RAY STEVENSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CONTINENTAL EAGLE CORPORATION, as successor
to Continental Gin Company and Continental
Moss-Gordin, Inc.; JOHN DOES,
Defendants - Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson
USDC No. 3:03-CV-322
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
For the following reasons, we affirm the district court:
1. We find no material difference between this case and the
claims made in Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir.
2004). Because Austin controls this case, we find that the
district court did not err in granting the defendant’s Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law on plaintiff’s defective design claim.
2. We further find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by refusing to allow the plaintiff to introduce an
-- 1 of 2 --
2
exhibit showing that the defendant got eight responses to thousands
of cautionary mail-outs it sent. No post-sale duty to warn exists
under Mississippi law, nor may a party be held liable for negligent
performance of a voluntary act unless the plaintiff detrimentally
relied upon the performance. Austin, 361 F.3d at 870. It is clear
that the plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the mail-outs, as
he admits to having no knowledge of them. Thus, the district court
did not err in excluding this exhibit for relevance.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.