Midwestern v. W. Corp. v. Ringley
| Decision Date | 15 June 1973 |
| Citation | 503 S.W.2d 745 |
| Parties | MIDWESTERN V.W. CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. Wanda RINGLEY and Kelly Vance Motors, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Winfrey P. Blackburn, Jr., Stites & McElwain, Louisville, for appellants.
J. Turner Hatcher, Hatcher & Lewis, Elizabethtown, for appellee Wanda Ringley.
James M. Collier, Faurest, Collier, Arnett, Hensley & Coleman, Elizabethtown, for appellee Kelly Vance Motors, Inc.
A Hardin Circuit Court jury awarded Wanda Rignley damages for personal injuries and property damage as a result of an accident when her automobile skidded and struck a telephone pole. The verdict was against Kelly Vance Motors, Inc., the Volkswagen dealer from whom Wanda purchased the car, Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesell, the manufacturer of the car, Volkswagen of America, Inc., the importer, a wholly owned subsidiary of the factory, and Midwestern Volkswagen Corporation, the distributor who purchased the car from the importer and sold the automobile to Kelly Vance Motors. The manufacturer, importer, and distributor appeal from the judgment in favor of Wanda Ringley and also appeal from a joint and several judgment in favor of Kelly Vance Motors against them for indemnity. Kelly Vance Motors does not appeal.
Wanda purchased a new Volkswagen automobile from Kelly Vance Motors. The warranty against defects in manufacturing covered a period of twenty-four months. Shortly after Wanda purchased the automobile, while applying the brakes to come to an abrupt stop, and the automobile pulled to the right. Wanda returned the automobile to Kelly Vance Motors and reported the incident, and when she picked up the automobile, she was advised that it had been repaired. She testified she had no further difficulty until shortly thereafter when a similar incident occurred, and again the automobile was returned to Kelly Vance Motors and again she was advised that the car was repaired. Wanda testified that she had no further difficulty until a little more than a month after the car was purchased when a similar instance of the automobile's pulling to the right after the brakes were applied resulted in Wanda's again returning the automobile to Kelly Vance Motors for the assigned reason that the 'brakes grab and pull to one side.'
Eight days after picking up the automobile, Wanda undertook to pass an automobile on a wet road; and, according to Wanda, she observed a pool of water in the road ahead of her. She testified that she applied the brakes, that the right-front wheel grabbed sending her automobile into a spin and out of control. The automobile struck a telephone pole resulting in severe personal injuries.
According to witnesses who testified for Wanda, it was discovered that the right-front brake drum was 'out of round' to a degree exceeding factory specifications. They testified that this was a defect in the manufacturing process which would cause the automobile to pull to the right when the brakes were applied.
Wanda's version of the accident was contradicted, as was the testimony of the extent that the 'out of round' condition of the brake drum exceeded factory specification, or that the brake drum was 'out of round' at all. All of this presents no problem as a jury issue was presented. Numerous errors are asserted; however, we conclude that appellants' assertion that Wanda failed to prove causation is dispositive of the case.
All of Wanda's witnesses testified that an 'out of round' brake drum on the right front would cause the automobile to pull to the right when the brakes were applied. On cross-examination, they testified that dirt and dust in the left brake lining would cause the automobile to pull to the right. There was testimony that the brake drums were blown out when the automobile was taken to Kelly Vance Motors. They further testified on cross-examination that water in the left brake lining would cause the automobile to pull to the right; that improper adjustment of the right-front brake drum would cause the automobile to pull to the right. There was testimony by one of the witnesses that an examination of the right-front brake after the accident revealed that it was adjusted too tightly....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
...(2) the defect caused the accident and (3) a reasonable alternative design would have prevented the accident. Midwestern V.W. Corp. v. Ringley, Ky., 503 S.W.2d 745, 747 (1973); Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts § 2(b), cmt. d (A.L.I.1998). KRS 411.310(1) creates a presumption rebuttab......
-
Beverly Hills Fire Litigation, In re
...in the brake lining, improper adjustment of the brake drum or improper tire pressure were not eliminated as causes. Midwestern V. W. v. Ringley, 503 S.W.2d 745 (Ky.1973). In Rollins, supra, plaintiffs offered no evidence that excluded other gas appliances as possible causes. Conversely, the......
-
Morales v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
...alleged defect was a proximate cause of the accident, where the jury was required to speculate and surmise. See Midwestern V.W. Corp. v. Ringley, 503 S.W.2d 745, 747 (Ky.1973). For example, in order for this theory to hold true, one must assume that, had Morales given Thompson the key and a......
-
Cardinal Industrial Insulation Co., Inc. v. Norris, No. 2004-CA-000525-MR (Ky. App. 3/6/2009)
...standard must be met for "otherwise, the jury verdict [will be] based on speculation or surmise." Midwestern v. V.W. Corp. v. Ringley, 503 S.W.2d 745, 747 (Ky. 1973); see also, Perkins v. Trailco Mfg. and Sales Co., 613 S.W.2d Page 12 857-58 (Ky. 1981), quoting Holbrook, 458 S.W.2d at 158 (......