Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffattorneyliabilityappealhearingtrialcorporationproduct liability
plaintiffattorneyliabilitystatuteappealtrialcorporation

Related Cases

Weibrecht v. Southern Illinois Transfer, Inc., 241 F.3d 875
View Case »
Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556
View Case »
Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Jones Day, 800 F.3d 936, 92 Fed.R.Serv.3d 689
View Case »
Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312
View Case »
Wishnefsky v. Riley and Fanelli, P.C., 799 A.2d 827, 2002 PA Super 153
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 392 S.E.2d 735

Facts

The plaintiff, a coed at East Carolina University, became a quadriplegic after a 1979 Jeep CJ-7 flipped over. She filed a lawsuit against American Motors Corporation and its subsidiaries for various negligent acts related to the vehicle's design and marketing. R. Ben Hogan, an attorney from Alabama known for his expertise in product liability, was admitted pro hac vice to represent her. After Hogan had meetings with a former AMC attorney who retained confidential documents, AMC moved to disqualify him, leading to a series of hearings and ultimately the trial court's decision to disqualify Hogan based on the potential misuse of privileged information.

In brief, on 7 February 1982 the plaintiff, an East Carolina University coed, was rendered a quadriplegic when the 1979 Jeep CJ-7 Golden Eagle in which she was riding flipped over on the sand dunes of Radio Island. She filed suit on 18 May 1984 against American Motors Corporation (“AMC”), and two of its subsidiaries, American Motors Sales Corporation and American Motors (Canada), Inc. for negligent design of the factory-mounted roll bar, negligent construction, negligent marketing, negligent failure to warn and negligent failure to recall.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff has a substantial right to counsel of her own choosing and whether the interlocutory order disqualifying her counsel is immediately appealable.

The issue before us is whether plaintiff has a substantial right to counsel of her own choosing and, if so, whether plaintiff may immediately appeal when her chosen counsel is disqualified.

Rule

An appeal may be taken from every judicial order which affects a substantial right claimed in any action or proceeding. A two-part test has developed: the right itself must be substantial, and the deprivation of that right must potentially work injury to the plaintiff if not corrected before appeal from final judgment.

Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments. The North Carolina General Statutes set out the exceptions under which interlocutory orders are immediately appealable.

Analysis

The court determined that the plaintiff had a substantial right to have R. Ben Hogan represent her, as he had been actively involved in the case for several years and was an expert in product liability. The disqualification of Hogan was seen as potentially injurious to the plaintiff, as it deprived her of an attorney with significant experience in similar cases. The court emphasized that the right to choose one's counsel is fundamental in the adversarial system, and the trial court's order affected this right.

Depriving plaintiff of her counsel of choice, who is an alleged expert in cases of this nature, certainly exposed her to potential injury unless corrected before trial and appeal from final judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order disqualifying Hogan and remanded the case for a decision on the merits, stating that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal without addressing the merits.

The trial court's order is appealable, and the Court of Appeals was in error in dismissing plaintiff's appeal without first passing on the merits thereof.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the court recognized her substantial right to counsel of her choosing and reversed the disqualification order.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that plaintiff had substantial right to be represented by attorney, who had been admitted in North Carolina pro hac vice, who had been actively involved in products liability suit for several years, and who allegedly was expert in products liability field.

You must be