Brown v. Ford Motor Company

• Decision Date: 06 August 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-3100.,72-3100.
• Parties: Mrs. Marie BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

479 F.2d 521 (1973)

Mrs. Marie BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-3100.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 1, 1973.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied August 6, 1973.

Edmund A. Landau, Jr., James V. Davis, Albany, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

Edward T. Hughes, Robert E. Hughes, Camilla, Ga., Sol Altman, Larkin M. Fowler, Jr., Thomasville, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GEWIN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 6, 1973.

CLARK, Circuit Judge:

Mrs. Marie Brown brought this diversity action seeking damages for the death of her husband, who died as a result of an automobile crash. Plaintiff contended that the accident was caused by the negligence of Ford Motor Company in assembling the automobile's steering mechanism. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Mrs. Brown against Ford Motor Company. After carefully reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence and reverse.

According to the uncontradicted evidence, the 1967 Ford Mustang automobile driven by Mr. Brown had been purchased used and had been wrecked and repaired before he acquired it. He was killed when the car left the highway and, despite the fact that it traversed both banks of a sloping ditch, traveled 280 feet in a straight line before running head-on into a large oak tree. The highway patrolman who investigated the accident testified that there were no signs of brake or skid marks between the point where the automobile left the pavement and the point of impact. Plaintiff's case rested on evidence tending to show that the nut affixing the steering wheel to the steering wheel shaft was loose. According to testimony presented on behalf of the plaintiff, such a condition would have allowed the splines on the steering wheel to become worn. The worn splines, it is asserted, would have permitted the steering wheel to rotate freely on the shaft, depriving the driver of effective control over the vehicle's direction of travel.¹

Ford contends on appeal that the jury verdict was contrary to the mechanics of physical science in light of the uncontradicted testimony introduced on its behalf that without steering control an automobile could not have angled across the ditch at the side of the road while traveling a straight path.² However, our disposition of the question discussed below renders it unnecessary to resolve this point.

Even assuming that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that the accident was proximately caused by the alleged defect, the plaintiff fell short of presenting sufficient evidence from which it could be concluded that the defect was the result of Ford's negligence. Mr. Walter Jurvis, sales manager of the parts supply company which manufactured the steering wheel for Ford, testified that a special marking on the wheel taken from the Brown car identified it as being one of a special order of steering wheels which was not delivered to Ford until some ten months after the latest possible date of manufacture of the car. This testimony was uncontradicted and unimpeached.

This circuit is firmly committed to the general rule that ordinarily questions of credibility of witnesses are for the jury ³ and our opinion today signals no departure from this standard. Rather, we emphasize the caveat expressed by the Supreme Court in Chesapeake & O. Ry. Company v. Martin, 283 U.S. 209, 216, 51 S.Ct. 453, 456, 75 L.Ed. 983 (1931):

This does not mean that the jury is at liberty, under the guise of passing upon the credibility of a witness, to disregard his testimony, when from no reasonable point of view is it open to doubt.

The plaintiff argues, however, that the jury was not required to accept Jurvis' testimony because of possible bias and interest in the outcome of the case. This claim of partiality is based solely upon the fact that Jurvis' employer, the manufacturer of the wheel, had been doing a substantial amount of business with Ford Motor Company. Some decisions contain language to the effect that the testimony of an interested witness always creates a jury question as to credibility. We decline to adopt any such absolute rule. Each case must turn upon its individual facts. Where the interest of the testifying witness in a particular outcome of the pending litigation is substantial, his possible bias may be sufficient in itself to create a jury question as to credibility. On the other hand,...