Gates v. Ford Motor Company, 73-1610.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1610.,73-1610. |
| Parties | Patricia GATES, on behalf of herself, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Larry A. Tawwater and John W. Norman, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Wm. G. Smith, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK,* Justice, and HILL and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
In this diversity action appellant Patricia Gates brought suit against appellee Ford Motor Company for personal injury and wrongful death of her husband. The complaint alleges the deceased was operating a tractor, manufactured by appellee, when it overturned on top of him, resulting in his death. It was claimed that the tractor was defectively designed, constituting negligence, strict liability and a breach of implied warranty of fitness.
Based upon the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other discovery, the district court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted appellee's motion for summary judgment.1 We have examined the record in the light most favorable to appellant and find no genuine issue exists as to any material fact. Accordingly, we affirm.
The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. The subject of the action is a small farm tractor, manufactured by appellee in 1946 and sold to third persons by Harold Potter, an authorized Ford tractor dealer. Potter reacquired the tractor twenty-three years later, made some adjustments and repairs on it, and sold it again. Other persons thereafter owned the tractor before appellant's husband purchased it in August, 1969. He was using the tractor, with a chain attached, to haul logs off his land on March 14, 1970, when it overturned, killing him. Following the accident Potter inspected the tractor and found it had been altered since its sale by him in 1969. A different engine had been installed and the safety bar on the draw bar assembly had been removed.
Appellant contends appellee had a duty to design the tractor, so it could be used safely for its intended purpose, and that this duty was breached because the tractor was designed in such a manner as to turn over on top of its driver. Without question appellee was under a duty to design a reasonably safe tractor. The record, however, does not support the allegation that this duty was breached. Appellant has shown only that her husband was fatally injured while operating the tractor. But injury, of itself, is not proof of a defect and raises no presumption of defectiveness. Lyons v. Valley View Hosp., 341 P.2d 261 (Okl.1959).
There were no witnesses to the accident, and thus there is no evidence as to the manner in which the tractor was being operated at the time. Potter testified that the tractor model in question was "one of the most stable and safest tractors on the market" at the time it was manufactured. He also said there were no requirements that tractors be equipped with roll bars or safety belts. This testimony was uncontroverted. The record also discloses the tractor should be used with its proper draw bar attachment, but that this piece of equipment had been removed.
The logical inference to be drawn from appellant's allegations, that the tractor was defective because it would turn over, is that similar accidents had happened on previous occasions. Yet there is no evidence that the tractor, which had been used for almost twenty-four years, had turned over before. We cannot say that one accident constitutes a design defect.2
Nor does the record contain any evidence to support appellant's claim that the tractor was defective because it did not have such safety features as roll bars and seat belts. Potter's uncontroverted testimony was that these were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MGPC, INC. v. Duncan
...allegations contained in their pleadings filed herein. Otteson v. United States, 622 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir.1980); Gates v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 458 (10th Cir.1974); Brown v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 418 (10th Cir.1974). The Defendants also did not comply with Local Rule 6(b) and the O......
-
In re Independent Clearing House Co.
...v. Du-Ra-Kel Corp., 569 F.2d 869, 873 (5th Cir.1978); Stevens v. Barnard, 512 F.2d 876, 878 (10th Cir.1975); Gates v. Ford Motor Company, 494 F.2d 458, 460 (10th Cir.1974); Ando v. Great Western Sugar Co., supra, 475 F.2d at 535. The mere allegation of a factual dispute is not enough to ove......
-
Farmer v. International Harvester Co.
...that the plaintiff will not carry his burden of proof by merely proving the fact of the occurrence of an accident. Gates v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 458 (10th Cir. 1974); Scanlon v. General Motors Corp., supra; Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 One further aspect of a plaintif......
-
Kelley By and Through Kelley v. Rival Mfg. Co.
...544 F.2d 442, 449 (10th Cir.1976); Burton v. L. O. Smith Foundry Products Co., 529 F.2d 108, 112 (7th Cir.1976); Gates v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 458, 460 (10th Cir.1974); Lamke v. Futorian Corp., 709 P.2d 684, 687 (Okla. 1985); Atkins v. Arlans Dept. Store, 522 P.2d 1020, 1022 (Okla.1974)......
-
Restatement Third, Torts: Products Liability; what hath the ALI wrought?
...of America Inc., 909 F.2d 1150 (8th Cir. 1990); Weakley v. Fischbach & Moore, 515 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1975); Gates v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 458 (10th Cir. 1974); Toney v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., 975 F.2d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 1992); Sexton by Sexton v. Bell Helmets Inc., 926 F.2d 331 (4t......