McGuire v. American Honda Co.
| Decision Date | 14 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 13490,13490 |
| Citation | 173 Mont. 171,34 St.Rep. 632,566 P.2d 1124 |
| Parties | Douglas R. McGUIRE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMERICAN HONDA COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Richard W. Anderson, argued, Billings, Berger, Anderson, Sinclair & Murphy, Billings, for appellant.
Jerome Anderson, argued, Billings, Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, Peete & Brown, Billings, for respondent.
Defendant American Honda Company appeals from a judgment entered in the district court, eighteenth judicial district, Gallatin County. The court tried the issue of liability without a jury and pursuant to its findings of fact and conclusions of law entered judgment in favor of plaintiff Douglas R. McGuire. Following denial of Honda's combined motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment and motion for a new trial, Honda appealed.
The action was brought by plaintiff to recover damages sustained in a motorcycle accident involving a motorcycle owned by plaintiff and manufactured by Honda.
Plaintiff purchased a used 1966 Honda Trail 90 motorcycle in April, 1970. Shortly thereafter he replaced the front tire with one purchased by his present wife (then fiancee) at a Bozeman motorcycle dealer's shop. On July 5, 1970, while operating the motorcycle in an area near Bozeman, plaintiff was thrown over the handlebars when the front wheel locked as he was descending a hill. Plaintiff received a broken pelvis; his wife, who was riding on the back of the motorcycle, was not injured.
Plaintiff originally brought a negligence action against Howard Nelson, d/b/a Harmony house, the local Honda dealer, alleging the dealer negligently sold plaintiff's wife a tire that was the wrong size for the front wheel of the motorcycle. Honda specified a 2.50 x 17 tire size for the front wheel of its Trail 90 model, and a 2.75 x 75 tire size for the rear; the larger size was sold to plaintiff's wife. Plaintiff alleges that the injuries he suffered were caused by the sudden seizure of the front wheel when the tire was forced up against the front fender.
Plaintiff was awarded $45,000 by the jury which found for him in that action. Nelson appealed and this court in McGuire v. Nelson, 162 Mont. 37, 508 P.2d 558, held that testimony of plaintiff's expert witness had been improperly received since no foundation had been given for an in court demonstration in which the motorcycle's front suspension was compressed through the use of furniture clamps. It was held that plaintiff had failed to show a substantial similarity of conditions between the force employed in the demonstration and the force applied at the time of the accident. The cause was remanded to the district court for a new trial.
Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint adding American Honda Company as a defendant, alleging negligent design and manufacture of a defective product in that the narrowness of the front fork allowed the front wheel to lock when fitted with an oversize tire, with no warning given for such a dangerous condition. Plaintiff alleged that Honda should be held strictly liable in tort.
Following the presentation of plaintiff's case before a jury, Honda's motion for a directed verdict was granted and judgment in favor of Honda entered. Plaintiff and defendant Nelson then settled, upon a covenant not to sue, for the amount of $3,750.
Plaintiff appealed. In McGuire v. Nelson, 167 Mont. 188, 536 P.2d 768, this Court held that testimony of plaintiff's expert witness, Roy Prussing, as to his opinion concerning the safety and/or defects of the design of the front suspension and the cause of the accident had been improperly excluded. This Court held that expert testimony is proper to explain the cause of an accident when the subject is complex and the expert qualified, and that witness Prussing was duly qualified. The cause was returned to the district court for a third trial.
The parties then entered upon a stipulation pursuant to which the issues of liability and damages would be split and the liability issue tried before the district court without a jury. It was stipulated that the testimony and evidence submitted by plaintiff would consist of testimony and exhibits on the liability issue received during the second trial of the case, and supplemental testimony of witness Prussing presented by his May 29, 1974 deposition. It was agreed that subject to Honda's right to appeal, a jury trial would be held to determine the issue of damages in the event the district court found the issue of liability in plaintiff's favor.
Plaintiff submitted to the court the record of the previous trial as it concerned his proof of Honda's liability, and the deposition of witness Prussing. Honda presented four expert witnesses at this trial and had twenty exhibits entered into evidence. Plaintiff testified in rebuttal.
The district court made and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 23, 1976. The court found that plaintiff's Honda 90 motorcycle would not safely accommodate on its front wheel the tire specified for the rear wheel and that Honda had displayed no warnings against the interchange of tires. It also found that the front suspension was so designed that when it "bottomed" there was insufficient clearance to prevent contact between the fender and front tire. The district court found that plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by Honda's failure to warn against interchange of the front and rear tires, by negligent design of the front suspension system, and by Honda's marketing a product deceptively and unreasonably dangerous to the user. The district court concluded as a matter of law that the motorcycle was negligently and deceptively designed in that the tolerances between the front wheel and fender were dangerously close; that the front and rear tires could not be safely interchanged although deceptively similar; and that there was no warning to the user of the dangers involved in the foreseeable practice of tire substitution. The court concluded that the negligent design, failure to warn and resulting defects were a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries; that plaintiff neither assumed the risk of injury in his operation of the motorcycle nor was guilty of contributory negligence; and that plaintiff had proven by a preponderance of the evidence his allegations concerning the strict liability in tort of American Honda Company.
Pursuant to its findings of fact and conclusions of law the district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability and ordered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bucktown Partners v. Johnson
...it lacks credence or is unworthy of belief (Laganiere v. Bonte Spinning Co. (1967), 103 R.I. 191, 236 A.2d 256; McGuire v. American Honda Co. (1977), 173 Mont. 171, 566 P.2d 1124), if it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances (Lopez v. Maes (1970), 81 N.M. 693, 472 P.2d 658), if it is ev......
-
Cissel v. Western Plumbing and Heating, Inc.
...the verdict. Dodds v. Gibson Products Company (1979), Mont. 593 P.2d 1022, 1026, 36 St.Rep. 348, 353; McGuire v. American Honda Co. (1977), 173 Mont. 171, 177, 566 P.2d 1124, 1127; Big Sky Livestock, Inc. v. Herzog (1976), 171 Mont. 409, 414, 558 P.2d 1107, 1109-1110. Further, the evidence ......
-
Keneco v. Cantrell
...the statements of Cantrell and the documentation concerned. Clearly, this evidence is conflicting. See McGuire v. American Honda Company, Mont., 566 P.2d 1124, 34 St.Rep. 632. Just as clearly there is not a preponderance of evidence against the court's findings and The judgment is affirmed.......
-
Harrington v. Holiday Rambler Corp.
...that the Harrington family suffered emotional distress at the hands of Holiday Rambler. This Court in McGuire v. American Honda Co. (1977), Mont., 566 P.2d 1124, 34 St.Rep. 632, relied on lay testimony of the plaintiff, his wife, and the plaintiff's cousin in determining that there was subs......