Barnett v. Ford Motor Co., 4945
| Decision Date | 31 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 4945,4945 |
| Citation | 463 S.W.2d 33 |
| Parties | Robert BARNETT, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CO. and Charlie Johnson Ford & Mercury Sales, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Turner, Rodgers, Winn, Scurlock & Sailers, John H. McElhaney, Dallas, for appellant.
Seay, Gwinn & Crawford, Robert A. Gwinn, Dallas, Parnass, Ebert, Browning & Riddles, Joe Riddles, Irving, for appellees.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from an instructed verdict that he take nothing, in a products liability case.
Plaintiff Barnett sued defendants Ford Motor Company and Johnson Ford and Mercury Sales, alleging he purchased a new Ford manufactured by Ford Motor Company, from Johnson Ford and Mercury Sales on February 16, 1968; that on February 23, 1968, the car was substantially damaged by a fire which resulted from a defect in the wiring underneath the instrument panel of the car; that the precise defect in the wiring is not ascertainable since the fire destroyed the wiring; that the circumstances under which the fire occurred, including the fact that only the defendants installed and inspected or otherwise dealt with the witing indicated the most reasonable and probable cause of the fire was a defect in the wiring. Plaintiff alternatively alleged the fire caused by a breach of implied warranty by defendants. Plaintiff sought $2864.02, the difference in the value of the automobile before and after fire as damages.
Defendants answered by general denial, denied any negligence, and alleged the vehicle was in the hands of several persons after it left their possession, was left unattended and unlocked on many occasions by plaintiff, and the fire could have been the result of acts of plaintiff or third parties over whom defendants had no control.
Trial was to a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence, defendants moved for instructed verdict. The trial court withdrew the case from the jury, and rendered verdict and judgment that plaintiff taken nothing.
Plaintiff appeals on 2 points contending:
1) The trial court 'erred in directing verdict for each defendant because the proof raises a reasonable inference of the existence of a defect in the automobile within the meaning of Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts, at the time it left the hands of the sellers.'
2) 'Alternatively, if the evidence only traces the existence of the defect from the time the automobile left the hands of the dealer, the manufacturer is still strictly liable because the manufacturer cannot delegate its duty to have its new cars delivered to the ultimate purchaser free from defects.'
The evidence shows plaintiff took delivery of a new Ford Thunderbird automobile from defendant Johnson Ford and Mercury Sales on February 16, 1968; that on February 23, 1968, after 500 to 600 miles of use, the interior of the automobile was severely damaged by fire. All of the instruments, dashboard, and wiring beneath the instrument panel were completely destroyed, the heaviest concentration of fire was 'in the center of the dash around the tape deck unit and the radio, right there in the middle of the console, thats the only place I could see actual flame and it spread to the other parts of the car'; * * * 'mostly the heat was definitely under the dash'. Ford Motor Company installed the radio and tape deck equipment at the factory. No one had smoked in the automobile on the day of the fire. Nothing was done to the wiring, the tape deck or car by plaintiff or under his direction or to his knowledge. The automobile had been parked and locked the night before, and was locked when unattended at all times thereafter. In the week plaintiff had his car only his father, stepmother, stepfather, roommate, date and a Mr. Norton had ridden in the car. None of them smoked in the car except...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mid Continent Aircraft Corp. v. Curry County Spraying Service, Inc.
...Company, 238 Cal.App.2d 95, 47 Cal.Rptr. 518 (Ct.App.1965). Cf. Haugen v. Ford Motor Company, 219 N.W.2d 462 (N.D.1974).2 Barnett v. Ford Motor Company, 463 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1970, no writ), assumed without discussion that loss resulting from damage caused by an unreasonably dang......
-
Harrison v. Bill Cairns Pontiac of Marlow Heights, Inc.
...Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 320 A.2d 315 (D.C.1974), Vernon v. Lake Motors, 26 Utah 2d 269, 488 P.2d 302 (1971); Barnett v. Ford Motor Co., 463 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex.1970); Losinski v. Ford Motor Co., 43 Mich.App. 114, 204 N.W.2d 49, 52 (1972); Ford Motor Co. v. Pittman, 227 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla.1......
-
Parsons v. Ford Motor Co.
...can only be proven by circumstantial evidence, particularly when a latent defect is involved. Darryl, 440 S.W.2d at 632; Barnett v. Ford Motor Co., 463 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1970, no writ). Whether a defect existed in an auto when it left each defendant's hands is frequently a ma......
-
Kleve v. General Motors Corp.
...37 Cal.Rptr. at 898, 391 P.2d at 170; MacDougall v. Ford Motor Company, 214 Pa.Super. 384, 257 A.2d 676, 680 (1969); Barnett v. Ford Motor Co., 463 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1970, no writ), 20 Drake L.Rev. at 544. See also Hunter v. Ford Motor Company, Supra; Annot., 13 A.L.R.3d 105......