Ford Motor Company v. Zahn

• Citation: 265 F.2d 729
• Decision Date: 16 April 1959
• Docket Number: No. 16107.,16107.
• Parties: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Marvin D. ZAHN, Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

265 F.2d 729 (1959)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Marvin D. ZAHN, Appellee.

No. 16107.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

April 16, 1959.

David W. Nord, Minneapolis, Minn. (G. P. Mahoney, Mahoney & Mahoney

Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for appellant.

C. A. Ryan, Brainerd, Minn. (Ryan, Ryan & Ebert, Brainerd, Minn., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and VOGEL and MATTHES, Circuit Judges.

MATTHES, Circuit Judge.

This is a Minnesota negligence action, in which appellee-plaintiff received a judgment for $26,350 following jury verdict, as damages for loss of his eye occasioned by a defective ash tray in a Ford automobile manufactured by appellant-defendant. Jurisdiction rests on diversity and amount in controversy. At the conclusion of all of the evidence, defendant moved unsuccessfully for a directed verdict; and after trial, moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Following denial of the latter, defendant appealed.

Since defendant's contention is that, under all the facts and circumstances of record, no submissible case was made, it is well to bear in mind the general rules governing any plea to displace a jury verdict: (1) All disputed fact questions and permissible inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff; (2) The question of negligence is usually for jury determination and it is only in rare situations, where there is no occasion for reasonable men to differ, that the question becomes one of law for the court; and (3) It is only where all or substantially all of the evidence is on one side, that a directed verdict should be entered. See Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Black Hills v. Hubbard, 8 Cir., 203 F.2d 859, 860, 861, and cases cited.

In line with the foregoing, we review the evidence bearing upon plaintiff's right to recover. On April 28, 1956, plaintiff was riding as a passenger in the front seat of a 1956 model Ford automobile that was owned and being driven by Clarence Dailey. The automobile was proceeding westwardly on Highway 218 in the state of Minnesota, at 45 to 50 miles per hour. As the automobile approached a crossroad, plaintiff dropped a lighted cigarette. While plaintiff was attempting to retrieve the same from the floor of the vehicle, with his head down, the brakes of the automobile were applied suddenly and with great force, throwing plaintiff forward and causing his face to come in contact with the dashboard. Dailey, the driver, applied the brakes suddenly in order to avoid a collision with an unidentified automobile which was apparently driven suddenly from the crossroad, directly in the path of the Dailey automobile. Immediately following plaintiff's contact with the dashboard, he realized that his right eye had been injured, as it was paining him and blood and liquid was emerging therefrom. Plaintiff was taken by Dailey to a hospital in St. Cloud, Minnesota, where plaintiff was treated by Dr. W. T. Wenner. The injury to the eye consisted of a penetrating laceration which extended the entire width of the cornea, "roughly half an inch." Surgery was performed by the doctor for the purpose of saving the eye, but despite all efforts and treatment, plaintiff lost all vision in the injured eye.

The Ford automobile was equipped with an ash tray which was located in the center of the dashboard. This tray was found on the floor of the vehicle after plaintiff was injured. When Dailey attempted to replace the tray in the dashboard, he discovered the channels upon which it rested had been bent down, and it was necessary for him to straighten the channels before he could insert the tray. After taking plaintiff to the hospital, Dailey examined the ash tray and for the first time discovered a "jagged" edge on the top right-hand front corner thereof. The tray in question was an exhibit at the trial and was also made available for our inspection. Upon examination, it appears that the upper right-hand corner of the front portion of this accessory is not only sharp, but a small protrusion, described by witnesses as a burr, extends therefrom. Testimony indicated that such a defect would be occasioned by a dull cutting die. This sharp edge and burr is the defect upon which plaintiff predicates his case.

Upon these facts, the issues as presented to the jury were: (a) defendant's negligence; (b) proximate cause; and (c) plaintiff's contributory negligence. No exceptions or objections were taken to the court's charge. By special interrogatories, the jury found that Dailey, joined as third-party defendant, was not negligent in respect to the matters causing plaintiff's injury.

For its first point in support of the basic assignment, defendant contends that plaintiff failed to establish that the projecting corner of the ash tray in fact caused the injury. In the main, defendant points to plaintiff's deposition in which he testified that he "knew I hit my eye on something, and I didn't know at the time what it was." We do not regard this statement as conclusively establishing that plaintiff's eye did not come in contact with the defective ash tray. Fairly considered, the deduction to be drawn therefrom is that plaintiff was immediately unaware of the exact object which produced the injury. But irrespective of the construction that may be accorded the deposition, there was substantial evidence in the trial to justify submission of this issue to the jury. Plaintiff's testimony was: "(w)hat my eye actually hit there was the ash tray" and "I knew my eye came in contact with the ash tray." Then we have the circumstance of the ash tray being knocked to the floor and its channels bent downward, from which the reasonable inference can be drawn that contact had been made therewith. To this may be added Dr. Wenner's testimony that the injury was caused by a sharp object striking the eye; that the eye injury was not a tearing or bruising, but a clear-cut wound; that it was a penetrating, clean, sharp wound, a cut across the eye from side to side; and that the "jagged" upper righthand corner of the ash tray was an object "such as I had in mind * * * as striking the eye or injuring the eye." In the absence of any showing that there was another sharp, projecting accessory or device on the dashboard of the automobile, it is obvious, as the trial court ruled, that "the question of causation was one wholly within the province of the jury." Any inconsistency or discrepancy between plaintiff's testimony as given on deposition and at trial, could only affect his credibility, and was properly a matter for the triers of the facts to consider.

The next contention urged upon us presents these meritorious questions: Was the defendant negligent? If so, was its negligence the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury? As to the duty owed to plaintiff, defendant concedes with candor that under the rule promulgated by the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A.1916, F. 696, "it was so placed with respect to the plaintiff or anyone in his situation that it owed him a duty to use reasonable care in the design and manufacture of its product." It is also recognized by defendant that this is the law in Minnesota. See Heise v. J. R. Clark Company, 245 Minn. 179, 71 N.W.2d 818. We do not understand that defendant seeks to escape the force of this rule on the theory that the sharp edge of the ash tray with the projecting burr did not constitute a defect — rather, its position is that the inspection made by it, particularly in view of the nature, position, and size of the defect, and the forseeability of injury resulting therefrom, constituted the exercise of reasonable care on its part.

By force of law there is imposed upon the manufacturer of an article for sale or use the duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent defective conditions caused by a miscarriage in the manufacturing process. This duty requires reasonable skill and care in the process of manufacture and for reasonable inspection or tests to discover defects. Harper & James, Law of Torts, Vol. 2, § 28.11; Restatement of Torts § 395; and see, Egan Chevrolet Co. v. Bruner. 8 Cir., 102 F.2d 373, 122 A.L.R. 987; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., supra, and cf. Ellis v. Lindmark, 177 Minn. 390, 225 N.W. 395; Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319, 79 N.W.2d 688.

...