Kerr v. Corning Glass Works

• Citation: 169 N.W.2d 587,284 Minn. 115
• Decision Date: 11 July 1969
• Docket Number: No. 41294,41294
• Parties: Francis M. KERR et al., Respondents, v. CORNING GLASS WORKS, Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 587

169 N.W.2d 587

284 Minn. 115

Francis M. KERR et al., Respondents, v. CORNING GLASS WORKS, Appellant.

No. 41294.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 11, 1969.

Syllabus by the Court

In an action predicated on the liability of a manufacturer for damages caused by its defective product, the evidence fails to sustain the finding that the product became defective while it was subject to the control of the manufacturer.

Reavill, Neimeyer, Johnson, Fredin & Killen, Duluth, for appellant.

Johnson & Thomas, by Ronald Thomas, Silver Bay, for respondents.

OPINION

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court and from its order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

Plaintiffs, Francis M. Kerr and her husband, David L. Kerr, sought to recover damages from defendant, Corning Glass Works, a New York corporation doing business in Minnesota, on the theory of strict liability for breach of an implied warranty, for injuries suffered by her, medical expense incurred by Mr. Kerr, and for property damages sustained by both of them due to the breaking of a cooking dish manufactured by defendant. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages of $1,500.

On June 1, 1962, plaintiff David Kerr's mother purchased three or four clear glass baking dishes manufactured by defendant, including the one involved here, at a hardware store in Silver Bay, Minnesota. These dishes were displayed unwrapped on a shelf within the reach of customers. All contained the imprint 'Pyrex, oven proof.' 'Pyrex' is a trade-mark of defendant. The dishes were examined at this time and no defects were discovered. They were then wrapped and given to plaintiff Francis Kerr at a bridal shower on the same day. Subsequently, the dishes were moved in plaintiffs' trailer home to Isabella, Minnesota. On January 4, 1963, some 7 months after the dishes were purchased, while Francis Kerr was removing the dish here involved from a heated oven, with the aid of a pair of potholders, the dish exploded. A piece of glass struck and cut her thigh, and other pieces burned various surfaces in the kitchen.

In a memorandum made a part of its order denying defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial, the trial court stated that the jury could reasonably have found that the Pyrex baking dish was properly used by Mrs. Kerr on six to eight occasions over a period of six months; that there was no testimony to compel a finding of improper handling by intermediate parties; and that on the day in question, while proper use of it was being made, the dish suddenly exploded and disintegrated, strewing glass about plaintiffs' kitchen. We, however, can find no evidence produced by plaintiffs that would support an inference that there was a defect in the product when it was manufactured or when it left defendant's factory.

As we view the record, the pertinent issue before us is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict under the theory of a manufacturer's strict liability for selling a defective product. We think not. See, McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc., 278 Minn. 322, 154 N.W.2d 488.

Each of the following elements must be established in order for plaintiffs to recover under the rule of strict liability:

(1) Plaintiff was injured.

(2) The injury was caused by defendant's product.

(3) The injury occurred because defendant's product was defective.

(4) The defect was present in the product when it was sold by defendant.

See, Prosser, The Fall of the Citadel, 50 Minn.L.Rev. 791, 840, relied upon by the parties and trial court herein.

Defendant does not dispute the facts of injury and damage, or that both were caused by the breaking apart of the glass baking dish manufactured by it. Defendant maintains, however, that plaintiffs have failed to establish that the injury occurred because Corning's product was defective and that the defect was present in the product when it was subject to defendant's control.

The action was tried on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, the inference being that a heavy-gauge glass baking dish, represented as 'oven proof,' would not explode in normal use unless it was defective. The trial court apparently relied on Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505, 127 N.W.2d 557....