Meiner v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 26 April 1971
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Gerald S. MEINER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 9886.

Page 702

94 Cal.Rptr. 702

17 Cal.App.3d 127

Gerald S. MEINER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 9886.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

April 26, 1971.

Hearing Denied June 23, 1971.

Victor A. Gables, Riverside, and Hunt, Liljestrom & Wentworth and Vernon W. Hunt, Jr., Santa Ana, for plaintiff and appellant.

Thompson & Colegate and Don C. Brown, Riverside, and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent Ford Motor Co.

Schell & Delamer, and Lee A. Solomon and Charles H. Carpenter, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent Holmes Tuttle, Inc.

OPINION

GARDNER, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff was the driver of a Ford Falcon involved in a two car collision. He brought a personal injury action against the Ford Motor Company and Holmes Tuttle, Inc., on a strict liability cause of action alleging that the accident was caused by a defect in the steering system of the Falcon. A jury trial resulted in a plaintiff's verdict for $300,000.00. Defendants' motion for a new trial was granted. Plaintiff appeals from the order granting the new trial. ¹

The decisive issue on this appeal, as we view it, is whether the trial court's specification of reasons for its order granting the new trial met the standard of specificity required by section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure as construed in Mercer v. Perez, 68 Cal.2d 104, 65 Cal.Rptr. 315, 436 P.2d 315, and Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc., 3 Cal.3d 359, 90 Cal.Rptr. 592, 475 P.2d 864.

No attempt will be made to summarize all of the evidence adduced during the complex fourteen day trial. The following statement of the essential facts will provide a sufficient setting for proper consideration of the issue raised by this appeal.

The accident:

Plaintiff was employed by a title company in public relations work and at the time of the accident was engaged in the performance of his duties. He was driving his employer's 1962 Ford Falcon which had been purchased new from defendant Holmes Tuttle, Inc. At the time of the accident, it had been driven slightly over 18,000 miles. The vehicle was equipped with standard manual steering apparatus.

The accident occurred about 10:00 a.m. on Mountain Avenue, a north-south street, at a point about 174 feet north of its intersection with First Street in the Norco area of Riverside County. Plaintiff had been travelling west on First Street and had just turned north onto Mountain Avenue when his vehicle collided virtually head-on with a southbound DeSoto driven by a Mr. Munoz. The paved portion of Mountain Avenue was approximately 21 feet wide. At the point of impact both vehicles were on the westerly half of Mountain Avenue.

Plaintiff gave the following version of the accident: He had been travelling 35 to 40 miles per hour westerly on First Street; as he approached Mountain Avenue he reduced his speed to 10 miles per hour to turn north; he knew that there was an upgrade on Mountain Avenue for a distance of some 200 feet northerly of its intersection with First Street to the crest of a hill which obscured traffic further to the north so he made his turn onto Mountain as close as possible to its right-hand edge; after completing his turn he made a slight correction to the left; when he tried to turn the vehicle back to the right the steering wheel stuck; and as he was trying to jerk the wheel loose, the DeSoto came over the hill and the vehicles collided head-on.

Mr. Munoz testified that when he first saw the Falcon it was westbound on First Street; because of its speed he at first thought the vehicle was going to proceed on past Mountain Avenue; the Falcon made a turn onto Mountain at a speed of approximately 35 to 40 miles per hour and came directly toward him; Mr. Munoz applied his brake and honked his horn; just prior to the impact the driver of the Falcon attempted to get back to his side of the street but it was too late.

Mrs. Salas and Mrs. Varela were in a car southbound on Mountain Avenue one or two car lengths behind Mr. Munoz. They testified plaintiff made a wide turn onto the wrong side of Mountain Avenue at a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour and at the time of impact appeared to be attempting to get back into his side of the street.

Evidence pertaining to defective steering apparatus:

Plaintiff was interviewed by a California Highway Patrol officer at the hospital shortly after the accident. He told the officer the steering wheel of the Falcon stuck; he was on the wrong side of the street; and the driver of the DeSoto was not at fault.

Plaintiff's co-worker, Mr. Zona, testified that on one occasion while he was using the Falcon some two or three weeks before the accident, the steering wheel locked after he backed out of the driveway of his home; he had to pull the wheel hard right and left several times in order to free it; he thereafter drove the car without experiencing further difficulty and did not report the incident to anyone.

Plaintiff testified he had driven the car some 9,000 miles and had never experienced any difficulty in steering it. However, he testified he had periodically noted a 'clunk' sound when he made a right turn so he took the vehicle to a Ford dealer during the 'warranty' period to have it checked. The dealer reported that there was nothing wrong.

A highway patrol officer checked the steering wheel of the Falcon at the scene of the accident and found that it turned the front wheels. Defendant's witnesses testified they tested the steering system after the accident and found it to be functional.

Plaintiff's expert witness was Mr. Severy, a research engineer employed by the University of California, Los Angeles, in automotive collision research. He examined the steering mechanism of the Falcon. It was known as a 'recirculating ball steering gear' in which 62 ball bearings circulate and recirculate. Mr. Severy described it as an extension of the 'worm gear and sector system' in which the ball bearings take the place of the screw thread; he stated that the ball bearings ride within a groove or 'race' in proximity to the threads of the worm gear and that about 40 ball bearings go into the 'race' and the remainder into a 'return guide.' He measured the ball bearings with a micrometer. Most of them were within 1/10,000th of an inch of 0.230 inch in diameter, but 10 (7 in one group and 3 in another) were beyond the range of 1/10,000th of an inch, plus or minus, 0.230, with one having a variation of 6/10,000th of an inch. He concluded the design size of the ball bearings was 9.230 inch in diameter. He found 'flat spots' on those which exceeded the 1/10,000th of an inch tolerance.

Mr. Severy was of the opinion that there were three possible causes for the steering wheel to lock in the manner described by plaintiff: (1) 'flat spots' on the ball bearings, (2) foreign metal particles or chips in the lubricant in the steering gear housing, and (3) a defective turn indicator. He was unable to check the gear lubricant or the turn indicator because they were not available for his inspection. If the latter two causes were eliminated, it was his opinion that 'flat spots' on the ball bearings caused the steering wheel to lock. In his opinion the flat spots might not have any effect for a long period of time but when their alignment happened to correspond at any given time, the combination of flat spots could amplify resistance and cause a momentary resistance or lock-up.

Defense experts testified in substance as follows: Mr. Abbott, an official of the company which manufactured ball bearings for the steering apparatus, described in detail the manufacturing, testing, and inspection procedures employed in producing the item. He testified that the ball bearings are run through a precise automatic gauging equipment which measures them for sphericity to a tolerance of one twenty-five millionth of an inch and automatically rejects any ball with a 'flat spot'; that the balls are run through the gauging device three times; and that a final visual inspection is made of every ball 'under a reflected light on a slate.' He testified that a ball bearing with a 6/10,000th of an inch variance would have been automatically rejected by the inspection device.

Mr. Jones, a Ford expert in steering mechanisms, described the design and function of the steering system in question. He testified that out of 15,000,000 steering gear units of the type in question, a lock-up had never been reported to him. In his opinion the steering system could not lock for the reason expressed by Mr. Severy because there was no way the ball bearings could stick to each other or cease to roll. He testified that if 10 of the ball bearings had 'flat spots' as described by plaintiff's expert and became 'indexed' (flat spot to flat spot), the efficiency of the system would be reduced by about 50 per cent, but it would neither lock nor appreciably affect the ability of the driver to turn the wheel. To demonstrate this fact, Mr. Jones testified that Ford conducted an experiment in which ball bearings were ground to create 'flat spots'; they were then epoxied together (flat spot to flat spot) and placed in the steering gear component in such a manner that they could not rotate or go into the return guide; the unit was assembled and placed in a car; and the car was then driven 10 miles on a test track. Jones testified that although a 40 per cent increased effort was required to turn the wheel, there was no difficulty in turning the car and there was no freezing or lock-up of the steering mechanism. In his opinion, if a lock-up occurred because of alleged defective ball bearings, a rim pull of 50 pounds on the steering wheel would force the ball bearings into the race causing an indentation known as 'brinnelling.' There was no evidence of 'brinnelling' in the races of the steering system in question.

The defense also called Dr. Morelli, a Cal Tech...