Moor v. Iowa Mfg. Co., s. 13514
| Decision Date | 23 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13514,13517,s. 13514 |
| Parties | Julie E. MOOR, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dennis Jon Moor, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IOWA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, d/b/a Cedar Rapids, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
J. M. Grossenburg of Day, Grossenburg & Whiting, Winner, and Dale Benson of Willoughby & Benson, Burke, for plaintiff and appellant.
David A. Gerdes of May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson, Pierre, for defendant and appellee.
Plaintiff, the administratrix of Dennis Moor's estate, Julie Moor, appeals from a judgment and verdict for defendant in a products liability action. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in removing the issue of defective design of a conveyor roller from consideration by the jury. We affirm.
On June 1, 1978, Dennis Moor became caught in the nip point of a conveyor belt. His arms were lodged between the conveyor roller and the belt, resulting in a slow death by strangulation. Iowa Manufacturing Company designed the roller but the conveyor itself was designed, fabricated, and constructed by Reynolds Construction Company. Plaintiff sued Iowa Manufacturing Company for negligently failing to issue proper warnings and instructions with the roller and for defectively designing the roller itself. The jury found against plaintiff on the claim for failing to warn or instruct, and this issue is not before us on appeal.
At trial, the judge denied plaintiff's instructions regarding defective design. Although the trial judge did not expressly withdraw this portion of plaintiff's complaint from the jury, by refusing the instructions he effectively eliminated the issue from jury consideration.
Where an issue is removed from the jury's consideration we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party presenting the issue. Fjerstad v. Knutson, 271 N.W.2d 8, 11 (S.D.1978); see, e.g., Beck v. Wessel, 90 S.D. 107, 237 N.W.2d 905 (1976); Thorstenson v. Mobridge Iron Works Co., 87 S.D. 358, 208 N.W.2d 715 (1973); Corey v. Kocer, 86 S.D. 221, 193 N.W.2d 589 (1972). Competent evidence must support plaintiff's theory before an instruction is given to the jury. Wolf v. Graber, 303 N.W.2d 364, 366 (S.D.1981). The trial transcript demonstrates that the plaintiff's legal theory and evidence were inconsistent.
Since plaintiff argued that the roller was defectively designed, it bore the burden of proving that the defect existed at the time that the roller left the control of Iowa Manufacturing Company. See Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251 (S.D....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheeldon v. Madison, s. 14387
...at trial, but only on those issues which find support by competent evidence in the record. Black v. Gardner, supra; Moor v. Iowa Manufacturing Co., 320 N.W.2d 927 (S.D.1982); Wolf v. Graber, 303 N.W.2d 364 (S.D.1981). an appellant who seeks to set aside a civil verdict because of an incompl......
-
Eischen v. Minnehaha County
...consideration, the Supreme Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party presenting the issue. Moor v. Iowa Mfg. Co., 320 N.W.2d 927 (S.D.1982). The jury separates us from the totalitarian cultures. Questions of fact should be resolved by a jury. A case should not be t......
-
Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Products Liability Litigation, In re
...215 Cal.Rptr. 195, 198-99 (1985) (no design defect in component motor; design defect was in finished meat grinder); Moor v. Iowa Mfg. Co., 320 N.W.2d 927, 928 (S.D.1982) (no design defect in component roller; design defect was in finished conveyor). In this case, the undisputed facts show a......
-
Davis v. Komatsu America Industries
...v. Heider Mfg. Corp., 456 N.Y.S.2d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982); Hoyt v. Vitek, Inc., 894 P.2d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 1995); Moor v. Iowa Mfg. Co., 320 N.W.2d 927 (S.D. 1982); Davis v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 800 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. App. 1990); Bennett v. Span Indus., Inc., 628 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. App. 19......