Beier v. International Harvester Company, 41842
| Citation | 287 Minn. 400,178 N.W.2d 618 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41842,41842 |
| Parties | Melvin O. BEIER, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY and Cliff Maki, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Evidence reviewed and held insufficient to create a jury issue concerning defendants' failure to adequately warn plaintiff of the possible loss of the rear dual wheels of his truck if the lug bolts and nuts securing the wheels to the hub were not separately tightened and periodically checked.
Murphy & Kalar, Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Sullivan, Hanft, Hastings, Fride & O'Brien, Duluth, for International Harvester Co.
Reavill, Neimeyer, Johnson, Fredin & Killen, Duluth, for Cliff Maki.
Heard before NELSON, MURPHY, ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN and PETERSON, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the district court entered pursuant to a verdict directed in defendants' favor. The action arises out of an August 16, 1965, single-truck accident which occurred when the lugs securing the right rear dual wheels sheared off, causing the wheels to fall off and the truck to tip over on its right side. The undisputed cause of the accident was that the right inner dual wheel lug nuts had become loose, thus permitting the right inner dual wheel to wear against the lugs and resulting ultimately in the lugs securing the dual wheels shearing off.
The truck, owned and operated by plaintiff, was a new International Harvester truck purchased in April 1965 from defendant Cliff Maki, an International Harvester dealer, and was the third International Harvester truck which plaintiff had owned. After picking up the truck at the factory in Springfield, Ohio, plaintiff took it into Maki's garage for the 1,000-mile checkup.
Plaintiff apparently next took the truck into Maki's garage for the 10,000-mile checkup, at which time he requested Maki to tighten the lug nuts on the rear dual wheels. Shortly after this, plaintiff noticed that one of the lug nuts securing the outside dual wheel was loose and had a service station attendant tighten it. He then returned to Maki's garage and requested Maki to tighten up some loose parts, among which were the loose lug nuts. Maki apparently told plaintiff that he could not do it that day and that plaintiff should return in a few days to have it taken care of. Plaintiff never returned. Rather, he drove to Minneapolis in furtherance of his truck business, and on the return trip the accident occurred.
The truck was equipped with dual rear wheels which were mounted with 'Budd' mountings. With this type of mounting, the inner dual wheel is placed over the hub and secured to it with five double-threaded lug bolts. These 'Budd' mounting bolts have threads on both the inside and the outside and turn onto the protruding bolts on the hub; the outer dual wheel is then placed over the five double-threaded lug bolts and is secured in place with lug nuts which turn onto the outside threads of the double-threaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Disc. Tire Co. of Tex., Inc. v. Cabanas
...Trejo , 185 S.W.3d at 48 ("[T]he occurrence of an accident is not of itself evidence of negligence."); cf. Beier v. Int'l Harvester Co. , 287 Minn. 400, 178 N.W.2d 618, 620 (1970) (wheel detachment case).In this case, the jury was left with meager circumstantial evidence that required them ......
-
Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Motor Division
...instructions and warning regarding a matter which he understood and appreciated from his own prior experience. Beier v. International Harvester Co., 287 Minn. 400, 178 N.W.2d 618. See also Williams v. Brown Mfg. Co., 45 Ill.2d 418, 261 N.E.2d 305, 46 A.L.R.3d 226; Baker v. Rosemurgy, 4 Mich......
-
Russell v. G. A. F. Corp., 79-186.
...sheet was defective when it left G.A. F.'s hands. Of course, there must be a danger to warn about. See Beier v. International Harvester Co., 287 Minn. 400, 402, 178 N.W.2d 618, 620 (1970) (insufficient evidence to show danger of which defendant had a duty to warn in that it was impossible f......