Ford Motor Co. v. Conrardy

• Decision Date: 20 July 1971
• Docket Number: 24508,Nos. 71--166,s. 71--166
• Citation: 488 P.2d 219,29 Colo.App. 577
• Parties: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error. v. B. V. CONRARDY et al., Defendants in Error. . II
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 219

488 P.2d 219

29 Colo.App. 577

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error. v. B. V. CONRARDY et al., Defendants in Error.

Nos. 71--166, 24508.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

July 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 17, 1971.

Yegge, Hall & Evans, Richard D. Hall, Denver, for plaintiff in error.

William J. Madden, Denver, for defendants in error.

DWYER, Judge.

The Ford Motor Company, by this writ of error, seeks to reverse judgments entered against it in an action brought by defendants in error, as plaintiffs in the trial court.

In July of 1965, plaintiffs B. V. Conrardy and his son, Galen Conrardy, purchased an automobile manufactured by defendant from one of defendant's authorized retail dealers. On January 4, 1966, this automobile, while driven by B. V. Conrardy, left the highway and overturned. The plaintiffs alleged that this accident was caused by a mechanical failure of the steering system which occurred when a control arm in the system broke due, they alleged, to a defect in the control arm existing at the time they purchased the vehicle. After a trial before a jury, which returned verdicts in favor of plaintiffs, judgment was entered in favor of B. V. Conrardy in the amount of $13,000, as damages for personal injuries, and in favor of all plaintiffs for $1,649, the stipulated amount of the damage to the car.

The issues on appeal concern questions of liability and of damages. In submitting the case to the jury the court gave the following instruction on the issue of liability.

'If you find that there was no defect in said left lower control arm on plaintiff's automobile on the date of purchase, July 3, 1965, or that, if present at that time, it was not a proximate cause of the accident on January 4, 1966, you will bring in a verdict in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.

'On the other hand, if you find that the left lower control arm on the plaintiff's automobile contained a defect on the date of purchase, July 3, 1965, and further find that said defect was the proximate cause of the accident in question on January 4, 1966, you will bring in your verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, unless however, you should also find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff, B. V. Conrardy, was negligent and his negligence was a proximate cause of said accident, in which event your verdict must be for the defendant.'

In seeking reversal the Ford Motor Company does not contend that the court erred in giving this instruction, which imposed strict liability on it as the manufacturer of the car. The basis of its claim of error is that there is no evidence that the defect in the control arm existed at the time the automobile was purchased by plaintiffs.

B. V. Conrardy testified that the steering system of the automobile had always operated properly prior to the accident. In describing the accident, he said that he was driving on a smooth dry road in a normal fashion; that the car suddenly veered to the left across the highway; that he was unable to steer or control the car; and that it went off the road into a ditch.

A mechanic who examined the vehicle after the accident testified that he found that the lower left control arm was broken or split into two pieces. The pieces were removed, and his examination revealed corrosion on the control arm at exactly the place where it had broken or cracked. This corrosion indicated to him that the crack had existed for some time prior to the accident. His examination of the vehicle indicated that the break did not result from the overturning of the car.

A professor of metallurgical engineering examined the pieces of the lower control arm. His microscopic examination revealed the presence of non-metallic inclusions in the metal of the control arm. The professor was called as an expert witness and testified that this condition is an indication that the metal is defective; that these non-metallic inclusions in the control arm were probably initiated during the manufacturing process; and that such defective condition probably caused the crack in the control arm.

Plaintiffs called an additional witness who was qualified as an expert in the field of automotive and metallurgical engineering. He testified that, on the basis of his examination of the control arm, he was of the opinion that the control arm suffered a 'brittle fracture;' that the fracture was caused by an inherent and latent defect; and that the defect originated in the manufacturing process.

The plaintiffs' evidence, although in sharp conflict with defendant's evidence, was sufficient to submit the issues to the jury and to support the jury's verdict in plaintiffs' favor on the issue of liability. The verdict, although based on conflicting evidence, will not be disturbed on review. Schneider v. Pinnt, Colo., 476 P.2d 1004; Rosenthal v. Citizens State Bank, 129 Colo. 35, 266 P.2d 767.

The Ford Motor Company argues that if the evidence of liability is held to be sufficient, then, as an alternative to reversal, it is entitled to a new trial on the issue of B. V. Conrardy's damages. In support of this position, it asserts that the damages are excessive under the evidence, and, further, that the award is based upon improper instructions and inadmissible evidence.

In the accident Mr. Conrardy suffered a 3 1/2 laceration on his forehead and eyelid, and fractures of the third, fourth, and fifth ribs on the right side. The laceration was closed with 16 stitches, and his arm was placed in a sling. He was not hospitalized, but remained in his house for a week or two. Mr. Conrardy was a farmer and a rancher, and he testified that he had difficulty operating farm machinery and performing other tasks incidental to his occupation. He testified that it was approximately one year before he fully recovered. He proved no permanent disability. His medical expenses amounted to $117, and he paid his sons $1,080 for labor which he would ordinarily have performed himself. Mr. Conrardy described his...