Schemel v. General Motors Corporation

• Decision Date: 28 November 1966
• Docket Number: No. EV 66-C-58.,EV 66-C-58.
• Citation: 261 F. Supp. 134
• Parties: Phillip Michael SCHEMEL, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

261 F. Supp. 134

Phillip Michael SCHEMEL, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. EV 66-C-58.

United States District Court S. D. Indiana, Evansville Division.

November 28, 1966.

William J. Marshall, Princeton, Ind., for plaintiff.

Thomas M. Scanlon, Anton Dimitroff, and Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer & Boyd, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DILLIN, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court for ruling on the motion of the defendant, General Motors Corporation, to dismiss plaintiff's personal injuries action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It has been fully briefed.

The novel theories presented by plaintiff's complaint are (1) that the defendant is under a duty to the motoring public, including plaintiff, to refrain from manufacturing and putting into the stream of commerce motor cars with a capacity for being operated at speeds in excess of one hundred miles per hour, and (2) that the defendant is under a duty to refrain from advertising its motor cars in such terms as to incite irresponsible and reckless drivers to drive at speeds in excess of such arbitrarily selected limit.

The facts pleaded, which we must assume to be correct for purposes of the motion, are that the automobile in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger, while being operated on a public highway at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour, was struck from the rear by a Chevrolet Impala automobile manufactured by defendant and being driven by one Michael N. Bigham at a speed of approximately 115 miles per hour. Plaintiff was severely and permanently injured as a proximate result of the collision. The defendant is alleged to have been negligent in designing, manufacturing, selling and distributing an automobile capable of being operated by an ordinary consumer, such as Bigham, at such a speed; in failing to install a governor making such a speed impossible in the hands of such a consumer; in designing, etc., the automobile "in such a manner as to release upon the general public a machine which was much more dangerous than was reasonable or necessary;" and by encouraging irresponsible persons, including Bigham, to drive in excess of 100 miles per hour by mass media advertising emphasizing and suggesting the super high speed capabilities of its vehicles.

The question as to whether a manufacturer of motor cars owes to motorists either or both of the duties alleged presents an issue of law for the Court. Evans v. General Motors Corporation, 7 Cir., 1966, 359 F.2d 822, cert. den. Oct. 10, 1966, 385 U.S. 836, 87 S.Ct. 83, 17 L.Ed.2d 70; Union Traction Co. of Indiana v. Berry, 1919, 188 Ind. 514, 121 N.E. 655, 124 N.E. 737, 32 A.L.R. 1171. We conclude that neither duty exists, and hence grant defendant's motion to dismiss.

We consider the holding of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Evans to be dispositive of plaintiff's first contention that defendant had a duty to refrain from manufacturing and selling cars capable of speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, unless equipped with a governor in the...