Gwyn v. Lucky City Motors, Inc., 665

• Decision Date: 16 March 1960
• Docket Number: No. 665,665
• Citation: 113 S.E.2d 302,252 N.C. 123
• Parties: Jullus J. GWYN, Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Charles H. WOODRUFF, Deceased, v. LUCKY CITY MOTORS, INC., and Ford Motor Company.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 302

113 S.E.2d 302

252 N.C. 123

Jullus J. GWYN, Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Charles H. WOODRUFF, Deceased, v. LUCKY CITY MOTORS, INC., and Ford Motor Company.

No. 665

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 1960

Ernest R. Taylor, Herbert M. Bacon, Morristown, Tenn., Price & Osborne, Leaksville, and Allen, Henderson & Williams, Elkin, for plaintiff, appellant.

Brown, Scurry, McMichael & Griffin and D. Leon Moore, Reidsville, for Ford Motor Company, appellee.

BOBBITT, Justice.

Whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient for submission to the jury as to the alleged negligence of Ford Motor Company, is the question for decision.

It was stipulated that the 1957 Ford pickup truck was manufactured by Ford Motor Company; that it was purchased by Woodruff from Crowell Long Auto Company, Inc., of Danville, Virginia, an authorized Ford dealer, on or about February 21, 1957; and that, when sold and delivered to Woodruff, it was a new truck.

Our consideration of the evidence is directed principally to plaintiff's allegation that Ford Motor Company was negligent in that it manufactured and delivered to its authorized dealer for sale a 1957 truck equipped with defective hydraulic brakes. (Note: Plaintiff also alleged negligence on the part of Lucky City Motors, Inc., and that Ford Motor Company was responsible therefor under the doctrine respondeat superior.)

'The over-whelming weight of authority is to the effect that the manufacturer of a truck, like the one here in question, owes a duty to the public, irrespective of contract, to use reasonable care in its manufacture and to make reasonable inspection of the construction in the plant where the truck was manufactured.' General Motors Corporation v. Johnson, 4 Cir., 137 F.2d 320, 322; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A.1916F, 696, Ann.Cas.1916C, 440; 5 Am.Jur., Automobiles § 350; 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 165; Annotations: 156 A.L.R. 479; 164 A.L.R. 569, 584.

We find no North Carolina decision in which an injured party has recovered against the manufacturer of an automobile on account of negligence in the construction and assembly thereof. However, in a case where the evidence was held insufficient, plaintiff's right to recover was tested by the rule stated above. Harward v. General Motors Corp., 235 N.C. 88, 68 S.E.2d 855. Also, see Jones v. Raney Chevrolet Co., 217 N.C. 693, 9 S.E.2d 395, and Hudson v. Drive It Yourself, Inc., 236 N.C. 503, 73 S.E.2d 4.

Appellee does not question the applicability of the general rule stated above, but rightly refers to MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., supra, as a landmark decision. Rather, appellee asserts the present case is factually distinguishable in that (1) the plaintiff in MacPherson had no notice of the defect in the wheel prior to the accident, and (2) there was no intervention by a third party 'such as the intervention by Lucky City Motors in this case.'

Decision requires an analysis of the evidence. In testing the sufficiency thereof, we are mindful of this well established rule: 'If there is any evidence, more than a scintilla, the judge should allow the case to go to the jury, since he is not to consider the weight of the evidence, but whether there is any evidence sufficient for the jury to consider.' McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure, § 565, p. 615, and cases cited.

Woodruff was an itinerant 'spray painter.' He worked by the job. He went from house to house in search of jobs. He would stay in one territory 'until he worked out' and then move to another. In each territory he would establish a temporary place of residence and work out from such place.

In February, March and April, 1957, Woodruff lived, with his wife, children, and other members of the family, in Ruffin, N. C. Banell Small, a brother of Woodruff's wife, then a 14-year old boy, lived as a member of this family group. About May 1, 1957, Woodruff moved from Ruffin to Morristown, Tennessee.

Plaintiff's evidence as to what occurred prior to and on the occasion of the fatal accident consists of the testimony of Banell Small.

Banell Small testified that he was with Woodruff when the 1957 truck was delivered in Danville; that he helped Woodruff in his work when he operated out from Ruffin and later when he operated out from Morristown; that he was with Woodruff on April 17, 1957, when the truck was taken to Lucky City Motors, Inc., in Reidsville, to have the brakes fixed; and that he was with Woodruff in Marshall, N. C on June 13, 1957, when the fatal accident occurred. Banell Small's testimony also tends to show the facts stated in the following two numbered paragraphs.

1. On June 13, 1957, Woodruff, driving the 1957 truck and accompanied by Banell Small, left Morristown for Marshall. In Marshall, about noon, they went to the house of one Everett Barnett. In so doing, they traveled (north) up a mountain road (ten or eleven feet wide), referred to as Hill Street. Barnett's private driveway ('just room enough for one vehicle') extended (east) from Hill Street, down the mountain. The grade on Hill Street and on Barnett's driveway was steep. On the west side of Hill Street, opposite the entrance to the Barnett driveway, there was a bank, that is, the side of the mountain.

2. In leaving the Barnett house, Woodruff drove up the driveway and onto and across Hill Street. He stopped when the front bumper hit the bank on the far (west) side, being unable to make the turn into Hill Street without backing. When the truck was still in 'low, low gear,' with the engine running, it started to roll back toward the east edge of Hill Street. When this occurred, Woodruff 'stomped' the brakes. The brakes 'froze' and failed to take effect. The truck rolled back over the east edge of Hill Street, down the side of the mountain toward the Barnett house, turned over and fell against an apple tree, and Woodruff was 'pinned in' in such manner as to cause his death.

On this phase of the case, we must conclude that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to require submission for jury determination whether the failure of the brakes proximately caused the fatal accident.

After the fatal accident, the Woodruff truck was removed to the warehouse of Service Motor Sales in Marshall. There was evidence that nothing was done to the truck in respect of brakes or otherwise prior to July 29th, the date the truck was sold to Mr. Derwood Trent of Morristown. Trent drove the Woodruff truck from Marshall to Morristown. As to what occurred on this trip, Trent testified: 'I found if I would hit the brake real suddenly I had no brake at all, just like a hard pedal that wouldn't release at all. If I released the pedal gradually, applied small pressure on it, it would depress. In other words, I mean if you stamped them all of a sudden, the pedal would stay firm and not depress. If you applied the brakes gradually, you had a brake.'

There was testimony by Trent and by John Self, Trent's mechanic, as to tests made in respect of the brakes on the Woodruff truck. In short, their testimony tended to show that the master (brake) cylinder assembly was defective in that it contained a 'one-piece' check valve instead of the 'two-piece' check valve called for by the 1957 Ford Manual. Their testimony tended to show that, after purchasing a 1957 brake assembly 'kit' from the Ford dealer in Morristown, they replaced the 'one-piece' check valve with a 'two-piece' check valve and after doing so the hydraulic brakes worked perfectly. According to their testimony, when the 'one-piece' check valve was used, the brake would operate satisfactorily if gradually applied but 'on sudden application' the outlet for the brake fluid would completely close and the fluid would not reach the brake cylinders in the wheels of the truck.

On this phase of the case, we must conclude that there was evidence sufficient to support findings that the master cylinder assembly in Woodruff's truck on June 13, 1957, contained a 'one-piece' check valve, and that this 'one-piece' check valve rendered the brakes inoperative if the driver suddenly applied or 'stomped' the brakes. In this connection, it is noted that the evidence offered by Lucky City Motors, Inc., tends to show that a master cylinder assembly for a 1957 truck should have a 'two-piece' check valve as one of its component parts.

The question arises: Did the master cylinder assembly in Woodruff's 1957 truck contain a 'one-piece' check valve when delivered by Ford Motor Company to the Danville dealer from whom it was purchased by Woodruff? To answer this question, we consider the evidence as to what occurred prior to and on April 17th, the date Woodruff took the truck to Lucky City Motors, Inc., to have the brakes fixed. As to this, the testimony of Banell Small and the testimony of James V. Lassiter, Jr., then the Service Manager for Lucky City Motors, Inc., a witness for Lucky City Motors, Inc., is in conflict, particularly with reference to what was wrong with the brakes when Woodruff took the truck to Lucky City Motors, Inc., on April 17th.

Banell Small testified: 'In between...