Llewellyn v. Lookout Saddle Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1975
• Docket Number: No. 12614,12614
• Citation: Llewellyn v. Lookout Saddle Co., 315 So.2d 69 (La. App. 1975)
• Parties: Lonnie Kenneth LLEWELLYN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOOKOUT SADDLE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 69

315 So.2d 69

Lonnie Kenneth LLEWELLYN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOOKOUT SADDLE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12614.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

June 4, 1975.

William B. Lynch, James M. Bullers, Bossier City, for appellant, Lonnie Kenneth Llewellyn.

Mayer, Smith & Roberts, by Alex F. Smith, Jr., Shreveport, for appellee, Lookout Saddle Co.

Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley, by Charles W. Salley, Shreveport for appellees, Farragut Enterprises, Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., third party defendants.

Before BOLIN, DENNIS and MORRIS, JJ.

DENNIS, Judge.

This is a suit for damages as a result of personal injury sustained by plaintiff when he fell from his horse allegedly due to a defective girth buckle. Made defendants were Topps Milling Company, Inc., a Bossier City retail western store, and one of its suppliers, Lookout Saddle Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation. Lookout filed a third party petition against Farragut Enterprises, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, and its insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company. Prior to trial, suit against Topps was dismissed with prejudice. After a trial, the district judge concluded that plaintiff had failed to prove that his injury was caused by a defective girth buckle, and judgment was rendered rejecting his demands. From this judgment plaintiff appealed.

Farragut purchased girth buckles from a Japanese firm not made a party to this suit. Employees of Farragut wove rayon material together with the buckles in such a fashion as to make a completed girth strap with a buckle on each end. These completed girths were shipped to Lookout as well as to other suppliers. Lookout then filled orders for girths as they were received from retailers such as Topps.

The girth with the buckle in question was purchased by Lonnie Llewellyn, plaintiff, from Marion Reeves, president of Topps, on December 3, 1970, after Reeves had shown him a picture of the girth in a brochure or catalogue published by Lookout. Llewellyn and his son used the girth without difficulty until October 29, 1971, at which time plaintiff fell from his horse while riding in Bossier Parish and sustained fractures of his elbow and wrist.

Lookout and Farragut strenuously contend that plaintiff failed to prove that the girth buckle which allegedly caused his injury was defective, or that Lookout was the manufacturer of the buckle and amenable to liability for its latent defects. Farragut also seriously argues that plaintiff failed to prove that the buckle in question was purchased by the retailer Topps from Lookout. These are formidable defenses, but the trial judge pitched his decision primarily on the plaintiff's failure to prove to a probability that the accident was caused by a defect in the girth buckle. We find no manifest error in his decision. Therefore, we will assume arguendo that Lookout was a manufacturer and that it sold the girth and buckle to Topps. We will discuss only whether the plaintiff proved that his injuries were caused by a defective condition of the girth buckle.

The applicable legal principles in manufacturer's liability cases are as follows:

A manufacturer of a product which involves a risk of injury to the user is liable to any person, whether the purchaser or a third person, who without fault on his part, sustains an injury caused by a defect in design, composition, or manufacture of the article, if the injury might reasonably have been anticipated. However, the plaintiff claiming injury has the burden of proving that the product was defective, i.e., unreasonably dangerous to normal use, and that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by reason of the defect. Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, 259 La. 599, 250 So.2d 754 (1971) (citing numerous authorities).

If the product is proven defective by reason of its hazard to normal use, the plaintiff need not prove any particular negligence by the maker in its manufacture or processing; for the manufacturer is presumed to know of the vices in the things he makes, whether or not he has actual knowledge of them. Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, supra (citing numerous authorities).

The plaintiff's burden is to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. This burden may be met by direct or by circumstantial evidence. Taken as a whole, circumstantial evidence must exclude other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty. This does not mean, however, that it must negate all other possible causes. Otherwise, the mere identification by the record of another possibility, although not shown to be causally active, would break the chain of causation. Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, supra; Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La. 569, 153 So.2d 395 (1963).

The only evidence that the plaintiff's injury in the instant case was caused by reason of a defective girth buckle is contained in the testimony of the plaintiff and one expert witness. The pertinent portions of Llewellyn's testimony, which bear upon this issue, read as follows:

'Q Let me call your attention to the events that occurred on or about the 29th of October, 1970. Would you describe to the court what your activities were on or about the afternoon or evening of that day?

'A After riding back home from work that evening, my son and I had saddled our horses and gone out for a ride. After riding approximately one hour, I started returning to the stable area. At some distance short of the stable area, approximately 300 yards, I don't know the exact measurements, in the pasture, he had parted company, going to the left as I headed to the right to return to the stable area, he was returning back up to the house where we kept his saddle and tack. I was going back to the tack room, since I had an older saddle, to return my saddle to the tack room. The reason he was not returning his, he had a new one and previous to this date, our tack room had been broken into and all the saddles were stolen so to protect the property, we were at that time keeping his gear at the house. As I was returning--after we parted company and as I continued back to the stable area, I approached an open ditch, drainage ditch is approximately 30 feet across. An anticipation of arriving there, I started slowing my horse down. The first time I pulled on the reins to give a command to slow down and to whoa, she started--to stop. At this time, for some unknown reason to me, at that time I started sliding up on her neck and at this time the reins relaxed and she was once again in a full gallop. I could see that culvert coming up and I was holding on as best I could and about this time, I started losing my balance to the right and between her front hoofs and that culvert, I elected to push off to the right. Landing on my right side and rolling over on the ground. The ground was quite hard due to the fact there hadn't been any rain and after making one or two rolls, I don't know how many at that time, I went...