Joseph v. Bohn Ford, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: CIACCIO
• Citation: Joseph v. Bohn Ford, Inc., 472 So.2d 185 (La. App. 1985)
• Decision Date: 05 June 1985
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Parties: Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 10,699 Alton R. JOSEPH, Credell Buckener Dominguez, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Her Minor Children, Tonel Dominguez and Rahsaanica Joseph v. BOHN FORD, INC., and Ford Motor Company. 2999.

Page 185

472 So.2d 185

Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 10,699

Alton R. JOSEPH, Credell Buckener Dominguez, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Her Minor Children, Tonel Dominguez and Rahsaanica Joseph v. BOHN FORD, INC., and Ford Motor Company.

No. CA 2999.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fourth Circuit.

June 5, 1985.

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1985.

Lawrence D. Wiedemann, W. Lloyd Bowers, Wiedemann & Fransen, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Edward E. Rundell, Gold, Simon, Weems, Bruser, Sharp, Sues & Rundell, Alexandria, for third-party defendants, Kelsey-Hayes.

Dermot S. McGlinchey, McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz, Cellini & Lang, P.C., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before GULOTTA, KLEES and CIACCIO, JJ.

CIACCIO, Judge.

Plaintiffs were injured when the van in which they were traveling crashed into a concrete support for an overpass. Plaintiffs sued the seller of the van, Bohn Ford, Inc., and the manufacturer of the van, Ford Motor Co., alleging negligent repair and a vice or defect in the design or manufacture of the van. A claim in redhibition was also made. Kelsey-Hayes, maker of a braking system component, was made a third-party defendant.

After a jury trial, the trial judge granted a motion for a directed verdict in favor of Kelsey-Hayes. The jury found Bohn Ford and Ford Motor Co. liable in solido for plaintiffs' injuries, and judgment was rendered accordingly. Only Ford Motor Co. has appealed. We reverse.

Plaintiff Alton Joseph, the driver of the van at the time of the crash, had purchased this 1980 model van from Bohn Ford on December 12, 1979. The van had been used by Bohn as a demonstrator model and had been driven 3,321 miles before plaintiff purchased it. Plaintiff used the van for business purposes, transporting small children to and from various schools.

Near the end of January, 1980, plaintiff experienced difficulty with the van's braking system. He also noticed that the tires were worn and he decided to replace them. On February 1, 1980, after the van had been driven a total of 7,176 miles, plaintiff brought the van to Bohn Ford to be repaired. The brake linings on all four wheels were completely gone, so Bohn Ford replaced them.

Plaintiff testified that when the van was first returned to him it worked properly. Within two weeks, however, he again experienced trouble with the brakes. On February 15, 1980, after the van had been driven an additional 1,252 miles, Bohn Ford again repaired the rear brake linings which had disintegrated and were completely gone. The front brakes apparently showed no unusual wear as they did not require repair.

On March 4, 1980, the crash occurred. The van had been driven 1,352 miles since the February 15th repair. Plaintiff testified that following that earlier repair the van again functioned properly, but that shortly before the crash he had heard the scraping noises which he had learned indicated trouble with the brakes.

In describing the accident plaintiff indicated that he applied the brakes in order to stop for a red light. The rear wheels seemed to grab or lock-up. The van spun around, the steering wheel spinning out of plaintiff's hands causing him to lose control of the vehicle. Traveling out of control the van then crashed into a support for an overpass.

Examination of the van following the crash revealed that the rear brake linings had disintegrated again. The front brakes were still in good shape. Closer examination and testing also revealed that the linings which had been on the rear wheels had been designed for use on passenger cars rather than on vans which are considered light trucks. Further, on one of the rear wheels the brake shoes, which are designated "primary" and "secondary", had been installed in reversed positions. Repair records from Bohn Ford revealed that passenger car brake linings had been installed at the time of the February 1st repair also.

Louisiana law on products liability is expressed recently by our Supreme Court in Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, 462 So.2d 166 (La.1985), as follows:

"... in order to recover from a manufacturer or supplier the plaintiff must prove (1) that the injury or damage resulted from the condition of the product; (2) that the condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to normal use; and (3) that the condition existed at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or supplier." 462 So.2d at 168.

The plaintiff must prove each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Plaintiff proved that an accident occurred while he was driving the van. The evidence established that at the time of the accident the rear brakes had disintegrated, requiring repair for the third time during less than 10,000 miles of operation. The experts who testified at trial disagreed as to whether the condition of the brakes at the time of the crash caused the accident. The jury resolved this question of causation in favor of the plaintiff. That conclusion by the jury was not clearly wrong, and therefore will not be disturbed. Canter v. Koehring, 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973); Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978).

Concluding that the condition of the brakes at the time of the accident caused the accident, however, does not establish liability on the part of the manufacturer of the van. In Hunt v. Ford Motor Co., 341 So.2d 614 (La.App.2d Cir.1977) and Landry v. Bill Garrett Chevrolet, Inc., 443 So.2d 1139 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), for...