LaCoste v. Ford Motor Co., 2-64983
| Decision Date | 25 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-64983,2-64983 |
| Citation | 322 N.W.2d 898 |
| Parties | Hilda L. LaCOSTE, Executor of the Estate of Donald W. LaCoste, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Alfred A. Beardmore, Charles City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Don W. Burington and Richard R. Winga, Mason City, and Harry J. Pearce, Bismarck, N. D., for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, personal representative of decedent, appeals from judgment for defendant Ford Motor Company in products liability action. The action seeks to recover damages for the death of Donald LaCoste, plaintiff's decedent, who died on August 7, 1977, as a result of being pinned between a 1975 Ford pickup truck and a building on decedent's farm.
No witnesses observed the event which caused the death of plaintiff's decedent. In the personal representative's action it is alleged that the death was caused by the truck shifting from park position to reverse after plaintiff's decedent alighted from the truck with the engine running. It is further alleged that this circumstance resulted from a defect in the shifting lever or a failure to give warning of the vehicle's propensity to react in this manner. Recovery was sought on a theory of strict liability in tort. Evidence at trial indicated that as early as April of 1971 the defendant had become aware of a frequently recurring problem described as follows by defendant's engineering department:
Present customer usage patterns indicate that this condition of careless shift lever actuation is occurring frequently in the field with actual high accident incidence.
It is recommended that a forward design and development be directed toward a feasible alternative which positively positions shift lever in park or reverse, to prevent a false sense of security as to transmission position.
At least 42 problems of this nature had been reported to defendant prior to April of 1971.
The only issue on appeal which we consider because it is dispositive is plaintiff's challenge to the trial court's refusal to submit to the jury the issue of whether the pickup truck was defective as a result of the manufacturer's failure to warn of known dangers associated with its use. Initially on this issue we note our rejection of defendant's claim that error has not been preserved. When presented with a draft of the trial court's instructions and offered an opportunity to lodge objections thereto, counsel for the plaintiff stated:
The instructions are not numbered, Your Honor, so--the plaintiff at this time objects to the instructions for the reason that there is no place in the instructions that the jury is told that suitable warnings and instructions for use are part of the design and that failure to adequately instruct and warn of the dangers involved would be a defect.
At this point, the trial court's response on the record was as follows:
Very well. With respect to your first objection, it is not the court's understanding that a failure to warn is a part of a design failure and the court will not instruct as requested.
The record indicates that the matter was not permitted to rest here, however. Apparently as a result of citation of authority delivered to the trial court by plaintiff's counsel the court again brought this matter up before instructing the jury. At this time the court stated:
Now, lastly, with respect to the question of the plaintiff that the court instruct the jury that there are two possible defects involved. One, the design defect gear in the shift lever and second, the lack of adequate warning. The court feels there are certainly cases on the subject of inadequate warning constituting a defect under the strict liability doctrine and we can all imagine ones such a very small printed warning of highly poisonous substance in a bottle. It appears to the court that the plaintiff has now delivered to the court a proposed instruction and some authority on the subject which the court has not had time carefully to read. I would say to the parties at this time that I am not inclined to instruct on the second feature that is lack of warning for this reason.
Still later in the record, but prior to instructing the jury, the trial court stated:
There is alleged an improper design, a defect in this case and the court is going to submit that to the jury, but it seems to the court that the circumstances of this case at least are such that the anticipated use of this vehicle in shifting is not such that the court can say, that a warning should be given or that the jury should be permitted to determine whether a warning should be given.
I. In order to preserve error for trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowson v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.
..."if it is unreasonably dangerous to place the product in the hand of a user without a suitable warning." LaCoste v. Ford Motor Co., 322 N.W.2d 898, 900 (Iowa App.1982) (emphasis added; citing Cooley v. Quick Supply Co., 221 N.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Iowa 1974)). The duty to warn in this situation......
-
Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Sma Elevator Constr. Inc.
...a product. See, e.g., Cooley v. Quick Supply Co., 221 N.W.2d 763, 768–69 (Iowa 1974) (citing Restatement § 402A); LaCoste v. Ford Motor Co., 322 N.W.2d 898, 900 (Iowa App.1982); Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 99, at 695 (5th ed. 1984); 63 Am.Jur.2d Products Liability § 545 (1984).Bingham, 485 ......
-
Burke v. Deere & Co.
...if it is unreasonably dangerous to place the product in the hands of a user without a suitable warning." LaCoste v. Ford Motor Co., 322 N.W.2d 898, 900 (Iowa Ct.App.1982) (per curiam). Inadequate warning may in fact be the product defect under Iowa law; it need not be a separate cause of De......
-
Brazzell v. United States
...as to its use. See Comment j to Section 402A, Restatement (second) of Torts. The Iowa Supreme Court so held in LaCoste v. Ford Motor Co., 322 N.W.2d 898 (Iowa 1982); Cooley v. Quick Supply Co., 221 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 1974). In LaCoste the Court stated: It is also recognized that in the applic......