International Harvester Co. v. Sharoff

Decision Date17 February 1953
Docket NumberNo. 4521.,4521.
Citation202 F.2d 52
PartiesINTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. v. SHAROFF et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Clarence L. Bartholic, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Robert S. Mitchell, Denver, Colo. (Nathan R. Kobey and Thomas E. McCarthy, Denver, Colo., were with him on the brief), for appellees.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

This was an action for the recovery of damages to a truck-tractor and semi-trailer resulting when the entire unit overturned while being operated upon the highways of Arizona. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs, appellees herein, upon which a judgment was entered. While fourteen points of error are relied upon for reversal, they may be grouped under four headings, namely, (1) there was insufficient evidence of negligence on appellant's part to submit the case to the jury, (2) plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which barred a recovery, (3) the court erred in the admission of evidence, and (4) the court erred in refusing to give tendered instructions.

Appellant, International Harvester Company, manufactured and assembled the truck-tractor and sold it to appellees. Appellant did not make any tests or inspections of the parts of the assembled units, particularly the torque rod housing and the springs, other than a visible inspection and spot check of the springs. At the time of the accident, the truck-tractor, pulling a trailer loaded with lettuce, was traveling from Phoenix, Arizona, to Denver, Colorado. While going up a steep pass and while coming out of a curve to the right, the entire unit turned over with serious damage thereto. So much of the evidence is without dispute.

Appellees' theory of the cause of the accident was that it resulted from the defective material of the broken parts hereinafter set out. The negligent acts on appellant's part relied upon to establish liability consisted of its failure to make adequate, reasonable and available tests of these parts which would have revealed the dangerous defects therein, and it is contended that this negligence was the proximate cause of the accident with the resultant damage therefrom.

There was no direct evidence as to the cause of the accident. On direct examination Delbert Ewing, the driver of the truck, testified that the truck was loaded with approximately 22,400 pounds of lettuce and that it also contained 3,300 pounds of ice. He testified that he was traveling on a winding oil road; that the road was dry; that he was going up a steep grade on this winding road; that approximately two or three miles down the road from where the accident occurred, while on a curve, the truck felt as if it were out of gear, like the clutch was slipping, or something was broken; that this condition lasted only for a few seconds when it took hold, straightened out, and functioned properly again. He testified that he did not stop and examine the equipment on that occasion because the road was narrow and there was no place to pull off without blocking traffic. He testified that just as he was coming out of a curve on a steep grade and while traveling at approximately 25 miles per hour, it felt like there was nothing behind him to hold the trailer up; that it snapped the whole rig over; that he made a brief inspection after the accident and noticed that the torque arm was broken, the universal joint was broken and the spring was out of the saddle, and later on he further examined the truck and found that the universal joint was pulled loose, the spring was loose in the saddle, the main leaf on the left spring was broken and that the housing bracket into which fitted the torque arm was broken. The witness testified that the torque rod bracket, being broken, allowed the rear end to rotate forward and backward, letting the springs pull out of the saddle and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Farmer v. International Harvester Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1976
    ...submitted to the jury by correct instructions. Boeing Airplane Co. v. Brown, 291 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1961); International Harvester Co. v. Sharoff, 202 F.2d 52 (10th Cir. 1953); Comstock v. General Motors Corp., 358 Mich. 163, 99 N.W.2d 627, 78 A.L.R.2d 449 (1959); Restatement (Second) of To......
  • Mamula v. Ford Motor Co., 371A49
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 6, 1971
    ...216 N.E.2d 537. This can only be accomplished by an examination of the circumstances of a particular case. In International Harvester Co. v. Sharoff, 202 F.2d 52 (10th Cir. 1953), a truck manufactured by the defendant, Harvester, mysteriously overturned during normal use. The plaintiff brou......
  • Consolidated Gas & Equipment Co. of America v. Carver
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • June 30, 1958
    ...nature that it is reasonably certain to place life or limb in peril when negligently manufactured or assembled. International Harvester Co. v. Sharoff, 10 Cir., 202 F.2d 52. But that general rule is without application here. Equipment was not engaged in the business of manufacturing or asse......
  • Karczewski v. Ford Motor Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • October 10, 1974
    ...Mamula v. Ford Motor Co., Ind.App., 275 N.E.2d 849 (1971). Also consistent with this result is the case of International Harvester Co. v. Sharoff, 202 F.2d 52 (10th Cir. 1953), which is cited with approval in Mamula, 275 N. E.2d at page 853 where Judge Buchanan "In reviewing the evidence pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Avoiding product liability claims: how much testing is enough?
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 62 No. 3, July 1995
    • July 1, 1995
    ...Kewanee-Ross Corp., 270 F.2d 575 (2nd Cir. 1959) (imposing liability for complete failure to test boiler that subsequently exploded). (11.)202 F.2d 52 (10th Cir. (12.)149 F.2d 98 (3d Cir. 1945). (13.)See, e.g., Watz v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 431 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1970) (imposing liability u......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT