Kenyon v. F. M. C. Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41917,41917 |
| Parties | , 41 A.L.R.3d 981 Wilma KENYON, Plaintiff, v. F.M.C. CORPORATION, Respondent, Harold Fuhrman, d.b.a. Fuhrman Buick, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A joint tortfeasor is entitled to indemnity to the full extent of the damages 2. Where the evidence and the court's instructions permitted the jury to find a manufacturer and a retailer of a riding lawn mower jointly liable to plaintiff for personal-injury damages caused by independent, concurrent negligent acts and omissions of each tortfeasor and not merely because of a negligent failure of the retailer to discover the negligence of the manufacturer, the retailer is not entitled to indemnity.
awarded where the tortfeasor seeking indemnity has incurred liability merely because of failure, even though negligent, to discover or prevent the negligence of the tortfeasor sought to be charged.
Johnson, Schmidt, Thompson & Schneider and John C. Lindstrom, Willmar, for appellant.
Faegre & Benson and Martin Burke, and Paul J. McGough, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN, FRANK T. GALLAGHER and THEODORE B. KNUDSON, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the cross-claim of appellant, Harold Fuhrman, doing business as Fuhrman Buick, seeking indemnity from respondent, F.M.C. Corporation.
The action arose out of the June 25, 1964, accident in which plaintiff, Wilma Kenyon, was injured while operating a riding-type lawn mower sold to her by Harold Fuhrman, appellant-retailer, and manufactured by respondent, F.M.C. Corporation. Plaintiff joined the manufacturer, the wholesaler, and appellant-retailer in her action for damages. The case was tried on plaintiff's theory that the negligence of each caused the accident. At the close of the evidence, the wholesaler's motion for a directed verdict was granted. The jury awarded damages of $8,000 against both appellant-retailer and respondent-manufacturer upon a special verdict finding each causally negligent. Both the retailer and the manufacturer appealed from the order denying their post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial. Before the appeals were argued in this court, the case was settled for $5,500, each defendant paying plaintiff $2,750. Those appeals were then dismissed, but without prejudice to the right of the retailer to pursue his claim for indemnity against the manufacturer as asserted in a cross-claim. Following a hearing on the motion for indemnity and based upon the trial record, the court denied the retailer relief, and judgment was entered dismissing his cross-claim. This appeal is taken from the judgment.
The sole issue presented by the appeal is whether the evidence as a matter of law compelled the trial court to conclude that the retailer is entitled to indemnity from the manufacturer.
The accident arose when plaintiff, while mowing grass on level ground, completely released her foot pressure on the clutch pedal to stop the forward motion of the lawn mower, but instead of stopping, the mower continued to go forward, going over an embankment and resulting in injury to plaintiff. The forward motion of the mower is controlled by putting the transmission gearshift into a forward position and depressing the clutch pedal. Through a series of connections, depressing the clutch pedal causes an idler pulley attached to an idler arm to press against a V-belt, thereby tightening the V-belt around the transmission pulley and activating the movement of the chain-driven rear wheels. When the clutch is released, the pressure against the idler pulley is released and the V-belt slackens, thus stopping the transmission of the engine power to the rear wheels. Clearly, the evidence permitted the jury to find that the accident was caused by a malfunction of the clutch mechanism.
Upon trial, plaintiff included in her claims of negligence against the manufacturer a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc.
...because the middleman's liability does not result solely from a failure to discover the manufacturing defect. Kenyon v. F. M. C. Corporation, 286 Minn. 283, 176 N.W.2d 69 (1970).3 See, e. g., Hillman v. Ellingson, 298 Minn. 346, 215 N.W.2d 810 (1974); Bjorklund v. Hantz, 296 Minn. 298, 208 ......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Simmons
...Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power Dist., supra; Schuster v. Steedley, 406 S.W.2d 387 (Ky.1966); Kenyon v. F. M. C. Corp., 286 Minn. 283, 176 N.W.2d 69 (1970), are factors influencing the award of indemnity. As stated above, indemnity was not the question presented to this ......
-
Keefer v. Al Johnson Const. Co.
...282 Minn. 135, 163 N.W.2d 755 (1968); Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson & Sons, Inc., 276 Minn. 12, 149 N.W.2d 1 (1967); Kenyon v. F.M.C. Corp., 286 Minn. 283, 176 N.W.2d 69 (1970). American Dist. Telegraph Co. v. Kittleson, 179 F.2d 946 (8 Cir. 1950), is a well-written decision which has particul......
-
Gorath v. Rockwell Intern., Inc.
...due to an obvious defect the seller should have detected. 384 N.W.2d at 563. It is likewise distinguishable from Kenyon v. F.M.C. Corp., 286 Minn. 283, 176 N.W.2d 69 (1970), where the retailer of a riding lawn mower had an independent duty to assemble the mower, and where the plaintiff was ......