Davis v. Coats Co., 50789
| Decision Date | 15 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 50789,50789 |
| Citation | 255 Iowa 13,119 N.W.2d 198 |
| Parties | Samuel DAVIS, Appellant, v. The COATS COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
James G. McDowell, Jr., Henry J. Haugan, Des Moines, for appellant.
Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, Des Moines, and John H. Mitchell, Fort Dodge, for appellee.
Plaintiff was the owner of an automobile service station in Ambler, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia. In December 1957 he purchased a tire changing machine manufactured by defendant. In connection with inflating a snow tire an explosition occurred, through the sudden release of air between the tire and the rim. The tire and rim flew upward, striking and breaking plaintiff's arm. He claims the injury occurred on account of a defective rod on the machine. The jury returned verdict for plaintiff. The trial court sustained motion for judgment in favor of defendant, notwithstanding verdict. Plaintiff appealed.
There is only one primarily important question in the case. When a machine manufacturer sells a tire changing machine is he liable to an injured user under following conditions? The injury was not caused by the tire changing mechanism, but by the operator being struck by a tire violently blown high in the air when being inflated after it was changed.
I. Plaintiff was the owner and operator of the service station. Defendant was a manufacturer of what was commonly known as 'Coats Iron Tireman', a tire changing machine. The machine was patented by Mr. Coats and he stated manufacture of it in Fort Dodge in 1956. After plaintiff purchased the machine he regularly changed and serviced from 50 to 100 tires per month.
The machine is largely composed of a round platform eighteen inches in diameter located on an iron standard twenty-five inches above the ground, upon which the tire is placed for removal from, and replacement on, the rim. There are some gadgets on the machine which assist an operator in the removal and replacement. The value and advantage of the machine is changing the tire on a platform twenty-five inches above the ground instead of kneeling down or bending over and doing the work on the ground.
Among other appurtenances on the machine is a rod which extends from above the tire on the platform to the base of the machine. A foot release is attached to the rod at the base. The proper and instructed procedure is to fasten the top of the rod, which has a hook upon it, to a gadget holding the tire and rim while the tire is being removed and replaced, and to fasten the bottom of the rod with another hook to the foot release at the bottom of the machine. The evidence clearly establishes that the only purpose of the rod is to hold the rim and tire steady while the tire is being removed and replaced. Before the tire is inflated the rod should be released by the operator's foot.
The case at bar arises because of an incident which happened at plaintiff's station on May 15, 1958. A customer came into the station to get a couple of snow tires mounted. After mounting one tire plaintiff proceeded to release the rod in accordance with written instructions contained in defendant's circular.
Part of the printed instructions of defendant to all operators are: 'Notice: Before inflating tube or tire to desired pressure, release foot lever.'
(Emphasis ours)
This seems primarily to infer caution against contributory negligence by the operator. It can also infer a statement to the operator that there is an area not covered by any part of the machine, about which the operator must himself be particularly vigilant to avoid negligent performance by any part of the machine.
After plaintiff operator had mounted the tire, and released the rod, he proceeded to inflate it for use. The tire blew into the air above the machine, hitting plaintiff enroute, breaking his arm, bruising and cutting his eye, and throwing him to the floor. The breaking of his arm was the only serious injury.
Plaintiff testified the sudden burst of air which caused the inflated tire to fly upward, was emitted in some manner between the tire and the rim. By some process, which was not clearly accounted for by plaintiff, when the tire and rim flew in the air, the so-called holding rod referred to above, was caught on a part of the machine and one of the hooks broken off.
Plaintiff contends this was due to a defect in the rod. Defendant contends the machine was a tire changing machine only, and not a tire holding machine, in case of a tire explosion by reason of air suddenly escaping from or adjoining the tire.
Was the holding rod a safety mechanism to hold a tire and rim from suddenly being blown into the air when a tire explosion occurs through escape of air?
Plaintiff's evidence in the case does not establish such fact. Outside of the medical testimony there were only two witnesses for plaintiff. Mr. Knerr, a metallurgist, and Mr. Davis for himself. Mr. Knerr knew nothing about the accident. His testimony was that the iron in the hook on the holding rod was weak and defective.
The following is plaintiff's testimony about the incident: 'I was putting air into the tire and the next thing I knew the tire went up--the rod broke or we found the rod broke, the tire hit the ceiling and I found myself on the floor with a broken arm' * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
This envisions peaceful removal and replacement of a tire. This has no reference to a situation when a tire 'blows up' in some manner. This is the complete substance of plaintiff's evidence. There is no evidence making the rod a safety device in case of such blow up. The machine is a 'tire changing' machine only. There is nothing about the machine which guarantees against blow-out when a tire is being inflated.
II. The testimony must be analyzed in the light most favorable to plaintiff when we are considering what is in effect a directed verdict for defendant. R.C.P. 344(F)(2), 58 I.C.A. Plaintiff's testimony fails to establish by substantial evidence the necessary factor of negligence on the part of defendant.
We feel we should say the predominant weight of the evidence is in favor of defendant. We say this to illuminate the facts; not to have anything to do with our decision. If plaintiff had substantial evidence to sustain his position this would be wholly within the province of the jury.
Defendant tendered six witnesses. They were either officers or workmen of the company. They testified the rod was not a safety device. The testimony of Company officer James R. Foster, a graduate of Iowa State University in engineering, was typical: 'We do not make any mention of that being a safety device' (the rod) * * * 'We do not try to protect against the blow up of a tire.' * * * * * * ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petty v. U.S., 83-1696
...of the particular injury sustained. See, e.g., Lakatosh v. Diamond Alkali Co., 208 N.W.2d 910, 913 (Iowa 1973); Davis v. Coats Co., 255 Iowa 13, 19, 119 N.W.2d 198, 202 (1963). Our prior opinion made it clear that finding "an undifferentiated duty" to warn of the risks and benefits of recei......
-
Winter v. Moore
... ... Ackley v. Farmers Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 273 Wis. 422, 78 N.W.2d 744, holds the emergency rule was erroneously ... ...
-
Calkins v. Sandven
...a formula or plan which, if properly followed, will produce an article safe for the use for which it is sold, * * *.' Davis v. Coats Co., 255 Iowa ----, 119 N.W.2d 198, 202, quotes section 395, supra, with apparent approval. We there denied liability of the manufacturer to the injured perso......
-
Pacheco v. Coats Co., Inc., 93-1791
...tire holding machine, in case of a tire explosion by reason of air suddenly escaping from or adjoining the tire." Davis v. Coats Co., 255 Iowa 13, 119 N.W.2d 198, 200 (1963). A Florida appeals court has agreed that "[t]he purpose of the machine was not to prevent a tire from exploding nor t......