Baughman v. General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-1579,85-1579
• Citation: 780 F.2d 1131
• Parties: , Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 10,874 Ronnie K. BAUGHMAN, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 1131

780 F.2d 1131

54 USLW 2392, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 10,874

Ronnie K. BAUGHMAN, Appellant, v.GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 85-1579.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 7, 1985.

Decided Jan. 7, 1986.

Frederick A. Gertz, Columbia, S.C.(George A. Kastanes, Cheryl A. Forest, Gertz, Kastanes & Moore, Columbia, S.C., on brief) for appellant.

Stephen G. Morrison, Columbia, S.C.(Richard H. Willis, Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, S.C., on brief) for appellee.

Before CHAPMAN and SNEEDEN, Circuit Judges and HILTON, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from summary judgment entered for the defendant General Motors (GM), in a diversity action brought under S.C.Code Ann. Sec. 15-73-10 et seq.This statute is Section 402A of the Second Restatement of the Law of Torts, which the General Assembly of South Carolina has enacted.The plaintiff, Ronnie Baughman, sought to recover for injuries received when a multi-piece wheel from a 1979 GMC truck separated with explosive force.GM was granted summary judgment on the grounds that it did not design, manufacture, or place into the stream of commerce the wheel in question.From this decision Baughman appeals.We affirm.

I

Baughman was a tire mechanic; he was employed by Newton Truck Rentals, Inc. at the time of his accident.On May 25, 1981, Baughman was changing a tire on a 1979 GMC truck.The tire was mounted on a CR-2 multi-piece wheel.Baughman removed the left outside rear wheel from the truck and disassembled the tire, tube, rim base and side ring.He then replaced the tire and tube and reassembled the rim base and side ring.Baughman put the wheel in a safety cage in case it separated during inflation.Once the tire was inflated, Baughman removed it from the cage and rolled it over to the truck.Baughman began to remount the wheel and it exploded, severely injuring him.

At the time of the accident, Baughman had over two and one-half years of continuous experience in servicing all types of multi-piece wheels.By his own estimate, he had changed over 10,000 tires before his accident.Baughman had read literature on safety procedures for mounting various types of multi-piece wheel assemblies and twice before he had seen multi-piece wheels explode.

GM only puts CR-3 wheels on its trucks, and there is no question that the CR-2 wheel which injured Baughman was not marketed by GM.The CR-3 is also a multi-piece wheel.The CR-3 and the CR-2 share the same rim base, but the CR-2 has a one-piece side ring and the CR-3 has a two-piece side ring.Baughman's expert testified that the locking mechanism which holds the wheels together is identical on the CR-2 and the CR-3, but he went on to testify that the CR-3 is less likely to explode because of its two-piece side ring design.

Baughman presented two theories of liability.First, in designing the GMC truck in question, GM selected a CR type wheel, and Baughman argues that all CR type wheels are unreasonably dangerous.Even though the wheel which caused his injury is not the wheel which GM put on the truck, Baughman would base liability on the fact that it is a similar type of wheel.Second, Baughman also argues that GM failed to warn him that the wheel could explode after the tire was fully inflated.

GM moved for summary judgment.The district court granted the motion, holding that GM could not be liable for an allegedly defective wheel which it did not design, manufacture, or place into the stream of commerce.The district court also held that GM had no duty to warn of possible dangers posed by replacement parts that it did not design, manufacture, or place into the stream of commerce.The court went on to note that even if GM had such a duty, its failure to warn could not have been the proximate cause of Baughman's injuries since Baughman was...