Baker v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
| Citation | 115 Cal.App.2d 221,252 P.2d 24 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1953 |
| Parties | BAKER v. B. F. GOODRICH CO. Civ. 19085. |
Edwin C. Boehler, Francis R. Dwyer and Jerrell Babb, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Crider, Runkle & Tilson, Clarence B. Runkle, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of defendant's negligence. From a judgment in favor of the defendant entered upon the verdict of the jury plaintiff appeals, contending that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the applicability of which under the circumstances is the sole question presented.
Appellant was engaged in mounting and inflating a new tire of respondent's manufacture and while so doing a violent explosion occurred throwing the appellant, as well as the tire and wheel, with great force into the air, as a result of which appellant sustained serious and permanent injuries rendering him mentally incompetent, with loss of memory, as a result of which he was incapable to testifying upon the trial.
The evidence discloses that appellant at the time of the accident and for more than a year prior thereto, was employed as a service mechanic by an automobile agency. The tire in question was one of a number purchased from respondent by appellant's employer approximately a year prior to the accident. This shipment of tires was delivered from the respondent's place of business located in the City of Los Angeles to the premises of appellant's employer in the City of Burbank by a truck carrier employed for that purpose and paid for by the respondent. While in the course of transportation the tires were handled in the usual and customary manner, being laid flat in the truck and stacked one upon the other. No heavy objects were placed upon the tires and apparently no untoward incident occurred during the course of the journey. Upon arrival at the employer's premises the tires were placed in a rack or cradle located about eight or ten feet above the floor of the garage 'where it is cool and shady' and the particular tire in question remained in this rack until delivered to appellant for mounting on the day of the accident.
The tire in question was being mounted by the appellant upon a so-called Chrysler safety rim which, because of a small ridge or hump designed to cause the bead of the tire to rest in the groove on each side of the flange, makes the mounting of a tire thereon somewhat more difficult than on an ordinary rim. Immediately prior to the explosion the appellant was observed by a fellow workman in the act of mounting the tire. At the time the wheel and tire were lying flat upon the ground and when first observed by the witness in question the tube was in the tire and the first bead was already on the rim. Appellant then proceeded to push the tire down on one side, getting it started by the use of a tire iron and then 'finished up' with a rubber mallet. He then introduced air into the tube when a little thud or pop was heard, indicating to the witness that the tire was then in place. During the operation appellant was observed checking the air pressure with a gauge 'several times'. The source of the air used in inflating the tire was a compressor having a maximum capacity of 150 pounds pressure and so constructed as to automatically shut off when this pressure was attained.
The tire was designed to withstand a maximum pressure of from 168 to 170 pounds and to customarily carry approximately 30 pounds. After the accident an examination of the tire disclosed that one of the beads was entirely broken, presenting the appearance of having 'been cut right through'. 'The break was about an inch and a half on the radius line of the tire and all that was holding the bead was a little fabric on the tire'. The tire, however, bore no evidence of scuffs or scars or any marks thereon which could have been caused by the use of a tire iron in mounting it. Within the bead there are 20 cold drawn steel wires each somewhat larger than a 32nd of an inch in diameter and all of these were completely broken. The tire was produced upon the trial and introduced in evidence, as were also X-ray films thereof.
In addition to the foregoing, qualified expert witnesses were produced by the appellant who testified that the bead wires at the point of the break were kinked and that this could have been caused in the process of manufacture when the tire was taken out of the mold by the hydraulic extractor or by the stripper when pulling the air bag out of the tire. A bead, if it breaks at all, will break at the kink, and all of the wires can be broken in the course of manufacture without showing on the outside of the tire. In the opinion of one of the expert witnesses it would be impossible to break a bead which was not otherwise defective by the use of a tire iron; he having observed attempts to break a bead with a 6-foot bar without success. A broken wire in a bead can be detected without cutting into the tire or bead by manipulating the bead, and the presence of a broken or kinked bead can be determined by inspection by feeling around the inside of the tire. Upon inspecting the tire in question an expert testified that he found evidence of a kinked bead at the point where the break occurred; also that in his opinion enough air could not be put into a tire to break a good bead, as the side-walls of the tire would give way first and also that the pressure 'would pull the flange off of the rim before it would even break the wires.' In the opinion of this expert the bead was 'defective to start, and in the process of pulling it out of the mold and curing, those wires were not in place where they should be, and that has a lot of tendency to bend a lot easier and break.'
As opposed to the foregoing, evidence was produced upon behalf of the respondent to the effect that the plaintiff did not use the proper method or procedure in mounting the tire in that after the mounting was completed plaintiff did not pick up the tire and wheel off the ground and look at the lower side or examine the bottom bead to see that it was in proper place before fully inflating the tire; and that the tube was one that had been previously used and was old, rim-chafed and stretched. In the opinion of defendant's witnesses by reason of the manner in which the tire was mounted by appellant the tube was pinched between the bead and the rim, causing the air to escape from the tube and the resultant explosion; also that all of the wires in a bead could be broken in the process of mounting the tire; one of the witnesses having observed beads broken while the tire was in the process of being mounted. An expert also expressed the opinion that the pinching of the tube and the resulting increased pressure and strain on the bead could have caused the bead to break. Other witnesses testified that they had never seen a broken bead in a tire at the conclusion of the manufacturing process. Still another witness testified that during a period of years while he was employed by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company he had seen only two tires with beads broken in the manufacturing process and that in both instances the carcass or fabric of the tire was badly torn and the break in the bead wires was readily observable. In addition there was testimony in considerable detail as to the process employed by respondent in the manufacture of its tires, and the jury were taken to the respondent's plant and observed it in operation.
We have necessarily condensed the evidence introduced upon behalf of the respective parties for the record is a voluminous one. However, enough has been set forth to indicate the factual background against which the question presented is to be determined.
Much has been written upon the so-called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and it has recently been the subject of an elaborate opinion by the Chief Justice in Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, Cal., 247 P.2d 344, in the course of which substantially all of the authorities in this state dealing with the question are reviewed and wherein he undertakes to clarify the conflicting statements to be found therein. In the light of this comprehensive exposition of the subject it would be a work of supererogation for us to here undertake to again review the many authorities therein discussed and to which our attention is directed by the parties.
In Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489, 154 P.2d 687, 689, 162 A.L.R. 1258, the requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are set forth as follows:
'The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has three conditions: '(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.''
With the foregoing as a standard we proceed to consider the evidence with the view of determining whether or not it is sufficient to meet each of the specified conditions.
As to the first requirement, no extended discussion is necessary for we hardly believe that it can be doubted that the accident here is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence. Automobile tires properly constructed do not explode when inflated in the process of being mounted in the usual and customary manner upon a wheel designed to receive them.
The second prerequisite, namely, that it be made to appear that the instrumentality in question was within the exclusive control of the defendant does not in every instance require proof of such control by the defendant at the time of the accident;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casetta v. U.S. Rubber Co.
...7 Cal.Rptr. 879; Roddiscraft, Inc. v. Skelton Logging Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 784, 793, 28 Cal.Rptr. 277; Baker v. B. F. Goodrich Co. (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 221, 226, 252 P.2d 24.) The existence of the first requirement is established for the reasons enunciated in Baker v. B. F. Goodrich C......
-
Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist.
...at p. 447 [exploding bottle of carbonated beverage]; Raber v. Tumin (1951) 36 Cal.2d 654, 659 [falling ladder]; Baker v. B.F. Goodrich Co. (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 221, 223 [bursting automobile tire]; Owens v. White Memorial Hospital (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 634, 639 [rail of hospital bed fell on......
-
Albers v. Gehrke
...7 Cal.Rptr. 879; Fields v. City of Oakland (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 602, 607--608, 291 P.2d 145; and Baker v. B.F. Goodrich Co., supra, 115 Cal.App.2d 221, 226--229, 252 P.2d 24.) There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that plaintiff mishandled the box in the brief interval commencing wi......
-
Roddiscraft, Inc. v. Skelton Logging Co.
...on the part of the defendant is raised. (Kite v. Coastal Oil Company, 162 Cal.App.2d 336, 344, 328 P.2d 45; Baker v. B. F. Goodrich, Co., 115 Cal.App.2d 221, 229, 252 P.2d 24.) The existence of the conditions upon which the doctrine is predicated is usually a question of fact. (Seneris v. H......