General Motors Corporation v. Wolverine Insurance Company

Decision Date12 May 1958
Docket NumberNo. 13365.,13365.
PartiesGENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. WOLVERINE INSURANCE COMPANY, subrogee, and John E. Tiggelman, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Byron A. Carse, Detroit, Mich. (William J. Eggenberger, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.

Dalton G. Seymour, Benton Harbor, Mich. (Seymour & Seymour, Benton Harbor, Mich., on the brief), for appellees.

Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of John Tiggelman and the Wolverine Insurance Company, a partial subrogee of Tiggelman, awarding damages for personal injuries to Tiggelman and property damage to his automobile. The complaint alleged that the damages had been caused by the collapse or breaking loose of the left rear wheel of Tiggelman's automobile, which had been manufactured by the defendant. Timely motions for a directed verdict were made by the defendant upon the ground that the plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to go to the jury on the issue of the defendant's negligence, and the appellant assigns as error the refusal of the district court to direct a judgment in its favor.

The facts giving rise to this litigation are relatively simple. In January, 1950, Tiggelman purchased a new 1950 Oldsmobile which he drove approximately 5800 miles prior to May 4, 1950. On that date Tiggelman took a pleasure drive accompanied by an acquaintance, James Brown, and the latter's two year old niece. In the course of the trip Tiggelman offered to allow Brown to drive. Brown accepted and drove approximately one and one half miles without incident. After completing a left-hand curve at a speed variously estimated as being between fifty and sixty miles per hour, the car rolled over several times, left to right, finally coming to rest on its top.

The plaintiffs introduced the testimony of three eyewitnesses to the accident, Brown, Tiggelman, and the driver of another automobile who was proceeding behind Tiggelman's car in the same direction. Tiggelman testified that as his car completed the curve or immediately thereafter it lurched and skidded as if on a patch of ice. The driver, Brown, testified that prior to the skid he felt a lurch and the left rear of the car seemed to him to have dropped. The other driver also testified that immediately prior to the accident he observed the left rear of the Tiggelman car drop. On cross-examination this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Arguello
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1963
    ...51 Wyo. 132, 65 P.2d 223, 69 P.2d 623; White v. Maverick Production Co., 63 Wyo. 452, 182 P.2d 818, 822; General Motors Corporation v. Wolverine Insurance Company, 6 Cir., 255 F.2d 8, 9; and Price v. Ashby's Incorporated, 11 Utah 2d 54, 354 P.2d 1064, But should I be mistaken in this view, ......
  • Wiper v. Great Lakes Engineering Works
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 29, 1965
    ...is pure conjecture and the motion for summary judgment was properly sustained under Michigan law. General Motors Corporation v. Wolverine Insurance Co., 255 F.2d 8 (6th Cir. 1958); Sheptur v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., 261 F.2d 221 (6th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1003, 79 S.......
  • Leathers v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 14, 1976
    ...Motors Corporation, 227 F.2d 210, 213-214 (5 Cir. 1955) involved far less probability than this case. General Motors Corporation v. Wolverine Insurance Co., 255 F.2d 8, 9 (6 Cir. 1958) was a case in which ". . . the inference of negligence clearly 'stands equiponderant at best' with the con......
  • Thornton v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • July 8, 2014
    ...the GPWS computer was defective. See Hurley v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 355 F.2d 517, 521 (7th Cir.1966) (citing Gen. Motors. Corp. v. Wolverine Ins. Co., 255 F.2d 8, 9 (6th Cir.1958) for the proposition that “the happening of an accident raises no presumption of negligence”). While Plaintiffs......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT