General Motors Corp. v. Howard

• Decision Date: 22 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 46105,46105
• Citation: 244 So.2d 726
• Parties: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. Hugh Vernon HOWARD.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 726

244 So.2d 726

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. Hugh Vernon HOWARD.

No. 46105.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1971.

Thornton & Mikell, Kosciusko, Williams, Gunn, Eppes & Crenshaw, Meridian, for appellant.

Crawley & Ford, Kosciusko, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice:

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Attala County, Mississippi, wherein a judgment of $50,000 was rendered in favor of the appellee in regard to a products liability suit filed by the appellee against the appellant. From that verdict this appeal is taken.

The appellee owned a 1967 Chevrolet C-10 pickup truck, manufactured by the appellant. This truck was involved in a violent and severe angular collision with a Mack tractor and trailer loaded with 70,000 pounds of corn. The accident took place just outside the corporate limits of the city of Kosciusko, Mississippi, at a 'Y' intersection. As a result of the collision, the appellee initiated proceedings against the driver and owner of the Mack unit and received the sum of $8,500 for his injuries allegedly sustained in the said accident. Thereafter this action was brought against the appellant on the theory that the appellee would have sustained less severe injuries in the collision if the appellant manufacturer had designed or produced its vehicle in a manner more conducive to the safety of the appellee. The appellee contends that the truck was advertised to have been equipped with a telescopic steering column and that the appellant was liable because, as a result of the accident, the appellee struck the steering wheel, which had not telescoped, with his head and chest, which resulted in permanent injuries.

The appellant contends that no duty is imposed upon it to produce vehicles which will be safe to collide or which are accident proof of incapable of injurious misuse. The appellant requested peremptory instructions at the end of the appellee's testimony and after both parties had rested, both motions were denied. The jury returned a verdict for the appellee in the amount of $50,000. From that verdict this appeal is taken. Exceptionally fine briefs were filed in this cause which was argued ably by counsel representing the litigants.

The appellant assigns fifteen errors which relate to the admissibility of the evidence, to the instructions, peremptory and general, to jury selection, to the overwhelming weight of evidence, and to a grossly excessive verdict evincing bias, passion and prejudice. We have carefully reviewed each of the fifteen errors assigned as discussed in briefs of counsel and we reach the conclusion that all of the errors can be synthesized into one basic issue of law, namely, did the lower court err in failing to grant a peremptory instruction to the appellant as a matter of law under the rule operative in Mississippi?

The record discloses indubitably that the appellee was proceeding in a northerly direction as he drove the C-10 Chevrolet truck on State Highway 35 into Highways 14 and 19, en route to Kosciusko. Appellee was entering the west or left side of the 'Y' intersection as he proceeded north traveling at a rate of speed of twenty-five miles per hour. To the east and to appellee's right, the Mack truck and trailer was proceeding in a southwesterly direction and was loaded with thirty-five tons of corn and traveling at thirty miles per hour. A stop sign placed in the angle of the intersection required the operator of the Mack truck to stop, and northbound traffic on Highways 35, 14 and 19 at the 'Y' intersection had the right-of-way. The Mack truck wholly failed to stop but continued and crashed into appellee's Chevrolet truck, striking it on the right front side, enmeshing it and carrying it a distance of 135 feet over the highway onto the wide shoulder and beyond.

The appellant assigned as controlling authority on this appeal the case of Walton v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, 229 So.2d 568 (Miss.1969), and the case that followed it, Ford Motor Company v. Simpson, 233 So.2d 797 (Miss.1970). These cases are almost factually comparable to the case at bar, and this Court, speaking through Justice Rodgers, in Walton v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, supra, held:

We are of the opinion that the automobile manufacturer is not an insurer against the possibility of accidental injury arising out of the use of its product. * * * (Citing authorities.)

Although it is true that the manufacturer is liable for defects in its products which cause injury arising out of the intended use for which the product is manufactured-we are, nevertheless, of the opinion, and so hold, that an automobile manufacturer is not liable for injury arising from defects on the...