Goullon v. Ford Motor Co.
Decision Date | 05 November 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 5418.,5418. |
Citation | 44 F.2d 310 |
Parties | GOULLON v. FORD MOTOR CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Ernest Woodward, of Louisville, Ky. (John Irick, John Marshall, Jr., and Woodward, Hamilton & Hobson, all of Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for appellant.
Stanley Newhall, of Louisville, Ky. (W. W. Downing, of Louisville, Ky., and Longley & Middleton and E. E. Juntunen, all of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, District Judge.
Goullon, the plaintiff below, purchased a Ford tractor from a dealer. While driving the tractor backward and twisting about in his seat, the rim of the steering wheel broke in his hand, he fell from his seat, and was run over and injured. Depending upon diverse citizenship to give the court below jurisdiction, he brought this action to recover for his injuries, upon the theory that the steering wheel was so defective that the defendant manufacturer was liable to him. The trial court directed a verdict against the plaintiff.
The opinion of the New York Court of Appeals, in MacPherson v. Buick Co., 217 N. Y. 382, 111 N. E. 1050, 1053, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 440, L. R. A. 1916F, 696, states the rule which has been repeatedly followed and has now become the generally accepted law. As applied to the relations existing between a manufacturer of an automobile and a purchaser from an intermediate dealer, it is said: We see no substantial distinction, in the respect now involved, between an automobile running wheel and a tractor steering wheel. The speed of the automobile is perhaps an essential element in creating peril to life and limb if the running wheel breaks; but, if the fairly probable result of the steering wheel collapse is that the driver may lose his seat, fall, and be run over by the tractor, or its attachments, the speed of its driving ceases to be of controlling importance. We think it clear from the evidence in this case, and from common knowledge, that such a fall is the reasonably probable result of such a break. The driver occupies a seat which has no side support, and is surrounded by no cab or other protection. In the ordinary operation of the machine, he could not safely keep his seat, excepting as he supports himself by the steering wheel. In thus maintaining his position against the unsteadiness of the seat, as well as in the necessary steering, he exerts a side pressure against the wheel, and, if the wheel gives way, there is substantial probability that he will lose his balance and fall. If he is twisted about in the seat, as is known to be necessary in driving backward, this probability is increased.
There was evidence that Goullon was using his left foot to operate the clutch instead of using his right foot, as would be the normal method. He says he was doing this because it was the more convenient method under such circumstances, and because it was a not unusual or improper...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 4434.
...jury. See General Motors Corp. v. Johnson, 4 Cir., 137 F.2d 320; Hupp Motor Car Corp. v. Wadsworth, 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 827; Goullon v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Cir., 44 F.2d 310. The jury conclusively resolved the facts in favor of the Petitioner's sister, who was driving the new Dodge at the time o......
-
Gibbs v. General Motors Corp.
... ... Gibbs, Appellant, v. General Motors Corporation, a Corporation, and Rendlen Motor Company, a Corporation No. 38105 Supreme Court of Missouri November 10, 1942 ... Buick, 267 Ill.App. 68; Jones v. Chevrolet, 213 ... N.C. 775, 197 S.E. 757; Reusch v. Ford, 82 P. 556; ... Quackenbush v. Ford, 167 A.D. 433, 153 N.Y.S. 431; ... Smith v. Ford, 202 ... 706, 261 S.W. 245; Bird ... v. Ford Motor Co., 15 F.Supp. 590; Goullon v ... Ford, 44 F.2d 310; Olds v. Shaffer, 140 S.W ... 1047; Flaherty v. Helfont, 122 A ... ...
-
McCormick v. Lowe & Campbell Athletic Goods Co.
... ... Frank ... Adams Elec. Co. (Mo. App.), 97 S.W.2d 849; Shroder ... v. Barron-Dady Motor Co. (Mo.), 111 S.W.2d 66; Tayer ... v. York Ice Machinery Corp., 342 Mo. 912, 119 S.W.2d ... Buick Motor Car ... Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A. 1916F, 696; ... Heckel v. Ford Motor Co. (N.J.), 39 A. L. R. 989; ... Johnson v. Cadillac Motor Car Co., 8 A. L. R. 1023, ... Radiator Corp. v. Henderson, 68 F.2d 92; Bird v ... Ford Motor Co., 15 F. Sup. 590; Goullon v. Ford ... Motor Co., 44 F.2d 310; Employers' Lia. Assur ... Corp. v. Columbus McKinnon Chain ... ...
-
Sitta v. American Steel & Wire Div. of US Steel Corp.
...a discussion of this subject, see Annotation, 164 A.L.R. 569. This Court has applied the rule in several cases, including Goullon v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Cir., 44 F.2d 310; Borg-Warner Corp. (Norge Division) v. Heine, 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 657; O'Donnell v. Geneva Metal Wheel Co., 6 Cir., 183 F.2d ......
-
Design defects.
...Co., 14 F.2d 734, 736-37 (3d Cir. 1926). (156.) Muller v. A.B. Kirschbaum Co., 148 A. 851 (Pa. 1930). (157.) Goullon v. Ford Motor Co., 44 F.2d 310 (6th Cir. 1930) (Ky. (158.) Lindroth v. Walgreen Co., 87 N.E.2d 307 (Ill. App. Ct. 1949), aff'd, 94 N.E.2d 847 (Ill. 1950). (159.) Matthews v. ......