Jastrzembski v. General Motors Corp.
| Decision Date | 09 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 10967. |
| Parties | JASTRZEMBSKI v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
John B. Martin, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Harry R. Axelroth, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for a new trial after the Court directed a verdict for defendant.
Accepting plaintiff's testimony in its most favorable light, as I am required to do in considering this motion, the facts were: On February 6, 1949, plaintiff purchased a new Pontiac automobile equipped with hydramatic transmission. The automobile had been designed and manufactured by the defendant. On July 5, 1949, the plaintiff drove the Pontiac onto a driveway leading to a parking lot. He placed the hydramatic gearshift in the neutral position, but he did not know whether he had set the hand brake. The car was facing up the slight incline of the driveway, the rear wheels resting in the gutter of the street. The plaintiff alighted to unlock the gate barring the driveway. While he was unlocking the gate, the automobile moved forward up the incline and pinned plaintiff against the gate causing injuries to him.
The plaintiff testified that he had operated the car for a period of five months prior to the accident, driving it possibly 15,000 miles, and that he had no difficulty with the hydramatic transmission during that time. He testified further that he operated the car, evidently without repairs to the transmission mechanism, for some three months after the accident and during that period it operated normally.
At the conclusion of this evidence, the Court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff had advanced no evidence of defect other than the happening of the accident and the Court held that this was not the type case in which the mere happening of an accident called upon the defendant for an explanation because the instrumentality was not within the exclusive control of the defendant.
The plaintiff contends that the mere showing of the happening of the accident is sufficient because the hydramatic transmission, being a complex mechanism understood only by the defendant and being contained in a sealed unit, could and should be considered sufficiently within the control of the defendant as to require defendant to explain the happening of the accident. At the outset, I might state that I do not regard any of the cases cited by plaintiff as apposite. In all those cases, the instrumentality was either under the exclusive control or management of the defendant or its servants, Commonwealth v. Montour Transportation Co., 365 Pa. 72, 73 A.2d 659, or the product, while not in the actual possession of defendant, was in an original package in which it was not reasonably subject to changes from outside forces. W. T. Rawleigh Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LeBlanc v. Ford Motor Co.
...delivered or would result in damage to, or maladjustment of, a properly made and inspected new vehicle. Cf. Jastrzembski v. General Motors Corp., 100 F.Supp. 465, 466 (E.D.Pa.), where, in similar circumstances, recovery was denied to one who had operated a new automobile 15,000 miles before......
-
Young v. Willys Motors, Inc.
...concludes that plaintiff has failed to prove such defect and failed to prove that defendant was negligent. Jastrzembski v. General Motors Corporation D.C., 100 F. Supp. 465, 466; Smith v. General Motors Corporation 5 Cir., 227 F.2d 210; Lovas v. General Motors Corporation 6 Cir., 212 F.2d 8......