Background
Shadara McGilberry bought a Singer sewing machine from a Walmart in Flowood, Mississippi. On her first use of the machine seven days later, its needle broke and a piece struck her left eye. She sued SVP Sewing Brands LLC, alleging negligence, strict liability, deceptive marketing, and breach of warranty based on an asserted design or manufacturing defect.
The circuit court’s scheduling order required McGilberry to designate experts by October 21, 2024, but she did not do so. SVP timely disclosed an engineering expert, Keil Zheng, who concluded that the machine’s design and assembly complied with applicable requirements, that the subject machine passed inspection, and that it showed no manufacturing defect posing a consumer-safety risk. McGilberry relied on her own deposition testimony that the needle broke, without supplying evidence identifying a defect or its cause.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for SVP. The court held that McGilberry failed to present legally sufficient evidence that the sewing machine was defectively designed or manufactured, unreasonably dangerous, or the cause of her injury under the Mississippi Products Liability Act.
Her evidence established only that the needle broke and hit her eye. That occurrence alone did not establish a defect or causation, and the court rejected her apparent reliance on res ipsa loquitur in the products-liability context. The court also held that her appellate arguments were procedurally barred because her one-page brief failed to comply with appellate briefing rules, though it separately concluded that the arguments failed on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- A product malfunction and resulting injury, without evidence identifying a defect or causation, will not defeat summary judgment in a Mississippi products-liability case.
- The plaintiff bears the burden to produce competent evidence supporting defect and causation; criticism that the defendant’s expert did not inspect the product does not shift that burden.
- Failure to timely designate an expert and failure to provide a compliant appellate brief can be fatal to a claim.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the Mississippi Products Liability Act governs claims framed as negligence, strict liability, warranty, or similar theories when they arise from an allegedly defective product. Plaintiffs must offer evidence connecting the injury to a specific actionable defect, rather than relying solely on an unexpected accident.
It also illustrates the practical importance of meeting expert-disclosure deadlines and appellate briefing requirements. Here, the plaintiff had no competent proof countering the manufacturer’s defect-free evidence or establishing causation.