Fought v. Hayes Wheels Intern., Inc., 96-1036

• Decision Date: 05 December 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-1036,96-1036
• Citation: 101 F.3d 1275
• Parties: Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,802 George FOUGHT; Glenda Fought, Appellants, v. HAYES WHEELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Kumho U.S.A., Inc.; Defendants, General Motors Corporation, Appellees, Kumho & Company, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1275

101 F.3d 1275

Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,802

George FOUGHT; Glenda Fought, Appellants, v. HAYES WHEELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Kumho U.S.A., Inc.; Defendants General Motors Corporation, Appellees Kumho & Company, Inc., Defendants.

No. 96-1036.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 1996.

Decided Dec. 5, 1996.

R. Alan Cline, Forrest City, AR, for appellants.

Robert L. Henry, III, Little Rock, AR, for appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, ROSS and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

Appellants George and Glenda Fought appeal from the district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of General Motors Corporation on the Foughts' personal injury claims based on negligence and strict liability. We affirm.

Appellant George Fought purchased a 1969 Ford pick-up truck approximately three months before his September 23, 1992 accident. Fought also purchased used wheels at a local auction and used tires at a local electric co-op, which he intended to have installed on the truck. The used tires were later shown to have been manufactured by Kumho U.S.A., Inc., and the used wheels were manufactured in 1974 by Hayes Wheels International, Inc., for use on a General Motors vehicle.

On the day of the accident, Fought brought the wheels and the tires to Lanard Walker's service station in Moro, Arkansas, and asked the attendant to mount the tires onto the wheels. The attendant attempted to mount one of the tires without success because the tire would not seal properly. The attendant put the partially sealed tire and wheel aside to help other customers. As Fought began to attempt to fill the tire with air, himself, the tire exploded, severely injuring him. It was later determined that the explosion resulted because Fought had attempted to mount a 16-inch tire onto a 16.5-inch wheel.

The Foughts subsequently filed suit against Hayes Wheels, Kumho and General Motors and eventually settled with Hayes Wheels and Kumho prior to trial. At the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the district court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of General Motors on the Foughts' claims of negligence and strict liability and dismissed the case.

We review the grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo and apply the same standard used by the district court. Judgment as a matter of law may be granted when "a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). We will affirm a judgment as a matter of law where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, "the evidence is such that, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict." Sip-Top, Inc. v. Ekco Group, Inc., 86 F.3d 827, 830 (8th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). Although we must accord the Foughts the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we may not give them "the benefit of unreasonable inferences." Id. A reasonable inference is one "which may be drawn from the evidence without resort to speculation. When the record contains no proof beyond speculation to support the verdict, judgment as a matter of law is appropriate." Id. (citations omitted).

The Foughts first argue that General Motors was negligent in failing to warn about the dangers of mounting a 16-inch tire on a 16.5-inch wheel. To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the Foughts were required to show that they sustained damages, that the defendants were negligent, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the damages. Morehart v. Dillard Dep't Stores, 322 Ark. 290, 908 S.W.2d 331, 333-34 (1995). "While a party may establish negligence by direct or circumstantial evidence, he cannot rely upon...