Clarke v. General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1977
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 73-1126.
• Citation: 430 F. Supp. 1124
• Parties: LaVonia R. CLARKE and Charles H. Clarke v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

430 F. Supp. 1124

LaVonia R. CLARKE and Charles H. Clarke v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

Civ. A. No. 73-1126.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

April 20, 1977.

Thomas F. Schilpp, Media, Pa., for plaintiffs.

George J. Lavin, J., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINION AND ORDER

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

I. JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

The plaintiffs, LaVonia R. Clarke and Charles H. Clarke, her husband, are citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in the City of Philadelphia. The defendant, General Motors Corporation, is a corporation with its headquarters or principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling automobiles.

The controversy is alleged to involve in excess of $10,000 and, therefore, jurisdiction is presumably based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332. While no evidence was introduced as to diversity of citizenship, jurisdiction has not been affirmatively questioned. Therefore, we find and conclude that this Court has jurisdiction.

II. THE PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS

The plaintiffs' complaint (paragraph 9) alleged (1) negligence, (2) breach of express or implied warranties, and (3) design defects. During the course of the trial negligence was expressly abandoned as a basis for recovery and plaintiffs pursued the theories of breach of warranty, express or implied, and strict tort liability within the meaning of Restatement 2d — Torts, § 402A. An express warranty was not proven. Neither was an implied warranty pursued except to the extent that it is, in some respects, not dissimilar to certain of the considerations relevant to Restatement § 402A. Plaintiffs bottom their case upon Restatement § 402A which provides:

"§ 402A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer

(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if

(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and

(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.

(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although

(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and

(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller."

Admittedly, the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling automobiles, including the vehicle here involved, which utilized the Saginaw power steering system manufactured by a division of the defendant corporation. The vehicle reached the plaintiff without substantial change in condition.

Plaintiffs had the right to expect that the vehicle would meet reasonable safety expectations and here "contend that they need only show under Section 402A, that the product was in fact (1) unreasonably dangerous due to (2) a defective condition and (3) that said defect caused driver's injury". (Plaintiffs' suggested conclusions of law, page 2). They contend that the vehicle involved went into a spin and out of control and that "(i)f linked in an evidentiary manner to a `defect', the results certainly indicate that it was unreasonably dangerous". (Plaintiffs' suggested conclusions of law, page 2).

III. THE APPLICABLE LAW

The plaintiffs contend, and we recognize, that under § 402A, a "defective condition" can be established without specific proof of a design defect. Evidence of a mechanical malfunction can be the basis for such finding. Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Co., 283 F.Supp. 978 (W.D.Pa.1967). It is the law of Pennsylvania, as plaintiffs assert, that a plaintiff in a strict liability case can establish a "defective condition", within the meaning of § 402A, by proving that the product functioned improperly in the absence of abnormal use and reasonable secondary causes explaining the malfunction. Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Co., 3 Cir., 407 F.2d 87.

MacDougall v. Ford Motor Company, 214 Pa.Super. 384, 257 A.2d 676 (1969) upon

which plaintiffs heavily rely, involved a new vehicle, less than 30 days on the road, with a mileage of 143 miles. Prior to the incident in question the vehicle had never been driven over 30 M.P.H. It was, for the first time, being driven at 60 M.P.H. on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, when it "handled badly", the steering seemed "loose" at times and sometimes seemed to "stick". Losing control of the vehicle, it proceeded on to the medial strip of the highway. The steering then failed to respond for a moment and on a second attempt to steer the vehicle it "oversteered". Metal flakes were found in the steering assembly. In addition, two other conditions were found, namely, a "tight" bearing on the steering shaft and a "`high point' on the sector shaft was adjusted too tightly" (p. 386, 257 A.2d p. 678). Because, to some extent, the plaintiffs' expert testimony here parallels that of plaintiffs' expert in MacDougall, we quote as follows from the MacDougall opinion:

"* * * In Summer's opinion, the metal flakes, if lodged in the gear mechanism, could cause temporary steering tightness, as could the tight bearing on the steering shaft.

"The function of the `high point' on the sector shaft is to stabilize steering during straight forward driving. Summers indicated that the improper adjustment to the `high point' would cause the car to oversteer when the wheel was turned and would require the driver to make constant steering corrections to maintain a straight forward course. While not giving an opinion as to whether the metal flakes or tight bearings prompted the accident, Summers suggested that the adjustment to the sector shaft was `very likely' to cause the accident.

"Appellant argues that appellees have failed to meet their burden of proof of causation as Summers did not state unequivocally that the specific defects in the steering assembly were the cause of the accident.

"Appellant's liability is governed by Restatement of Torts, Second, § 402A, which provides: `One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user . . . is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user . . ..' Mrs. MacDougall's testimony permits a jury finding that a malfunction of the steering mechanism caused the accident. As the causal connection between the accident and the malfunction is established, appellant's contention fails if a mechanical malfunction evidences a `defective condition' within the meaning of § 402A.

"Unless able to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or exclusive control, a plaintiff asserting liability on grounds of negligence must connect injury with a specific defect in the manufacture or design of a product. Loch v. Confair, 372 Pa. 212, 93 A.2d 451 (1953). Consequently, if the evidentiary standards of negligence governed § 402A actions, mere proof of a malfunction would not sustain the verdict for appellees.

"However, in Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Co., 283 F.Supp. 978 (W.D.Pa. 1967), aff'd, 407 F.2d 87 (3d Cir. 1969), the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in construing Pennsylvania law, held that § 402A actions are governed by the evidentiary standards of warranty law rather than negligence and that under these standards the occurrence of a mechanical malfunction evidences a `defective condition' without proof of the specific defect in design or assembly causing the malfunction. We find Greco to be a correct statement of Pennsylvania law.

* * * * * *

"Proof of the specific defect in construction or design causing a mechanical malfunction is not an essential element in establishing breach of warranty. `When machinery "malfunctions", it obviously lacks fitness regardless of the cause of the malfunction. Under the theory of warranty, the "sin" is the lack of fitness as evidenced by the malfunction itself rather than some specific dereliction by the manufacturer in constructing or designing the machinery.'" (citations omitted.)

Thus, in approaching the evidence, we are aware of the fact that the absence of proof of a specific defect is not fatal to plaintiffs' claim and liability may nonetheless exist. Jarnot v. Ford Motor Company, 191 Pa.Super. 422, 156 A.2d 568; Bialek v. Pittsburgh Brewing Co., 430 Pa. 176, 242 A.2d 231. It is a matter for the fact-finder, i. e., whether it can reasonably infer from the evidence, including expert testimony helpfully produced by the parties, the occurrence of a malfunction resulting from a defect and causing the incident from which damages ensued. Understandably, the inference must be reasonably drawn from the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the accident.

Among other considerations is the period of time that the alleged offending article or vehicle was used and the extent of its use prior to its alleged malfunction. In Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Co., 407 F.2d 87, 89 (3d Cir. 1969) the period was four days; in MacDougall it was less than 30 days—mileage 143; in Dennis v. Ford Motor Co., 332 F.Supp. 901 (W.D.Pa.1971) two days — 10 miles, and in Kridler v. Ford Motor Company, 422 F.2d 1182 (3d Cir. 1970), the difficulties with the steering commenced "shortly after the purchase" described as "`hard steering' which caused the car to `handle like a truck', making both left and right turns very difficult." The vehicle was returned to the dealer for repairs 24 times in five months suggesting an ongoing and continuous problem from the date of purchase. This is not to suggest that extended use or lapse of time is the sole criteria to be used. Convincing proof of an original defect will overcome lapse of time or use. Absent such proof, continued use, over an extended period of time may well prevent the inference to be reasonably...