Gibbs v. General Motors Corp., No. B--1801

• Court: Supreme Court of Texas
• Writing for the Court: CALVERT; WALKER
• Citation: 450 S.W.2d 827
• Parties: Opal Dent GIBBS et al., Petitioner, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. B--1801
• Decision Date: 11 February 1970

Page 827

450 S.W.2d 827 Opal Dent GIBBS et al., Petitioner,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Respondent. No. B--1801. Supreme Court of Texas. Feb. 11, 1970.

Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy & Collins, John E. Collins, Fanning & Harper, Peter S. Chamberlin, Dallas, for petitioner.

Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Martin & Unis, Royal H. Brin, Jr., Dallas, for respondent.

CALVERT, Chief Justice.

This suit was by John W. Alexander against Opal Dent Gibbs and husband, James E. Gibbs, and General Motors Corporation for damages for personal injuries

Page 828

sustained in a collision between an automobile driven by Alexander and a pickup truck, manufactured by General Motors and driven by Mrs. Gibbs. The Gibbs filed a third party action against General Motors. The trial court severed the claims against General Motors, granted General Motors' motion for summary judgment and, as to it, rendered judgment that Alexander and the Gibbs take nothing. The court of civil appeals affirmed. 445 S.W.2d 589. Only the Gibbs filed an application for writ of error. As to them, we reverse the judgments of both courts and remand the cause to the trial court.

The effort to impose liability on General Motors was based on the theory of strict liability in tort. It was alleged that the left front ball-joint unit on the pickup was defective, and that it had disintegrated or come apart, causing the left front wheel to collapse and the pickup to swerve into the Alexander automobile.

The court of civil appeals put the question before it in this language (445 S.W.2d at 590):

'Appellants correctly assert that the primary and controlling issue involved in this case is whether the summary judgment proof Raises a fact issue ¹ concerning defectiveness of the upper left ball-joint unit on the Gibbs pickup at the time of the accident and at the time the truck left the General Motors factory.'

Pointing out that an essential element of appellants' case was proof that 'the ball-joint unit in question was defective at the time it left appellee's factory,' the court of civil appeals concluded (445 S.W.2d at 593):

'The record considered in its most favorable light to appellant Does not raise a fact issue which would support a finding in their favor on this essential element of their case.'

The two quotations illustrate a basic fallacy frequently found in the approach of some of our courts to the matter of rendering or affirming a summary judgment in favor of a defendant. In such cases, the question on appeal, as well as in the trial court, is Not whether the summary judgment proof Raises fact...