Redman v. Ford Motor Co.

Decision Date25 September 1969
Docket NumberNo. 18964,18964
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesL. B. REDMAN, Administrator of the Estate of Edward B. Redman, Respondent, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Inc., Appellant.

Paul A. Sansbury, Darlington, Wright, Scott, Blackwell & Powers, Florence, for appellant.

James P. Mozingo, III, Greer & Chandler, Darlington, Edward E. Saleeby, Hartsville, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice.

The plaintiff brought two actions: one for wrongful death, and the other for pain and suffering, damage to property, and funeral expenses under the survival statute. The two actions were tried together by consent. This appeal involves, and the exceptions apply to, both cases. The plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of his deceased son who, while driving an automobile manufactured by the defendant, Ford Motor Company, was killed in a one-car accident. The jury returned verdicts for actual damages for the plaintiff in both suits. Post-trial motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial were overruled by the presiding judge, and the defendant appealed. In its appeal the defendant challenges the admissibility of certain expert testimony and the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence on the question of negligence.

Plaintiff's complaint alleged that his intestate purchased a new 1958 Ford automobile on March 14, 1958; that on March 22, 1958, while the intestate was driving the automobile on U.S. Highway 52 north of Darlington, South Carolina, one of the rear wheels suddenly came loose and the left rear axle shaft came out, causing the automobile to become uncontrollable and to roll and turn over with the intestate inside; and that the intestate was fatally injured thereby. It was alleged that the defendant failed to use due care in the manufacture of the automobile and that such negligence, carelessness, and willfulness on the part of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury and death of the plaintiff's intestate.

By answer the defendant (1) interposed a general denial, (2) alleged sole negligence, recklessness, and willfulness on the part of plaintiff's intestate, and (3) plead contributory negligence, recklessness, and willfulness on the part of plaintiff's intestate.

The one-car accident occurred while the deceased was traveling alone between midnight and two o'clock A.M., and when the automobile was only eight days old and had been driven 644 miles. The automobile was completely demolished as a result of its having apparently turned over several times.

The point at which the car was found was approximately the beginning of a substantial curve to the right for traffic traveling north from Darlington. The car was found lying on its side about 25 feet from the paved surface of the highway, and the unrecognizable body of the deceased was several feet from the car. The weather was clear, the highway was dry, and there were no skid marks on the road. There was a ditch approximately eight to ten feet from the highway which the Redman car presumably crossed. The highway patrolman who investigated the accident stated that the distance between a point on the right side of the road 'where it looked like a car had gone off the road' and the place at which the car had come to rest on the left side of the road was 400 feet. There were marks of some kind indicating the line of travel of the car, but no skid marks. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident.

Circumstantial evidence was relied on heavily by the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. The basic contention of the plaintiff was that the left rear axle shaft and wheel assembly became disengaged from the car and caused it to become uncontrollable to such an extent that it ran off the highway and overturned. The plaintiff contended further that an axle shaft would not come loose and separate from its anchorage while in operation if it was manufactured, assembled, and inspected properly.

Mr. Motte Pearce, a wrecker service operator who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident, testified that the left rear wheel assembly and axle were loose and dangling from the car outside the fender well. The axle was not broken, but was bent at an angle of approximately 30 . He said that he lifted the loose assembly and axle out of the axle housing and placed them in the car. The car was then taken to his junk yard and put under lock and key, but the assembly and axle disappeared a couple of days later. This disappearance was never explained.

Both the investigating officer and Mr. Pearce testified that the emergency hand brake on the automobile was pulled all the way up into the 'on' position. Mr. Pearce testified that sometime after dawn he examined the left rear wheel braking mechanism and found the brake shoes had expanded well beyond the point to which they could have expanded if the wheel drum had been in its normal position when the brake was applied.

As a part of his circumstantial evidence case, the plaintiff relied heavily on the deposition testimony of V. D. Ackerman, whose opinion testimony was admitted by the lower court. Three of the questions raised by the defendant on this appeal relate to Mr. Ackerman's testimony.

The first challenges the entire deposition and the deponent's qualifications as an expert in the field of automobile mechanics. It is argued that his background and qualifications are not such that his testimony should be considered as that of an expert. The adequacy of a witness's qualifications as an expert is largely a matter of discretion for the trial judge. Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 141 S.E.2d 129 (1965). Mr. Ackerman testified that he was 71 years of age and had been actively engaged in the field of automotive mechanics for more than 50 years. He stated that he was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers and the Automotive Engine Rebuilders Association of America; that he had served as repair and maintenance manager for two large transportation services in the United States; and that many thousands of pressure-fitted axles and bearings, including those for 1958 Fords, had been disengaged under his supervision. He further testified that this procedure for fitting bearings on axles is and has been for many years the standard one for all American cars, regardless of the make.

Although the witness admittedly had never removed the bearing from the axle of a new 1958 Ford automobile, a reading of the testimony permits no doubt that Mr. Ackerman possesses knowledge, skill, and information acquired by study, investigation, observation, practice, and experience about the construction, fitting and utilization of axles and bearings not likely possessed by the ordinary juror. We, therefore, find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's ruling that Ackerman could testify as an expert on the matters at issue in this case referred to in more detail later.

After the trial judge refused to exclude the deposition of Mr. Ackerman in its entirety on the ground, among others, that he was not qualified as an expert, counsel objected from time to time as the deposition was presented to the jury to various parts of the testimony, some of which objections were sustained, but most of which were overruled. The alleged errors on the part of the trial judge are summarized in two questions posed in the defendant's brief. One is the contention that Ackerman's testimony should have been excluded because it 'contained conclusions that were conjectural and speculative,' and the other is that it contained 'conclusions as to the very issue to be decided by the jury, and, therefore, invaded the province of the jury.'

In order to consider these questions it is necessary first to describe the functional parts of the left rear axle, bearing, bearing inner retainer, brake, and wheel mechanism, and their assembly and operation. The evidence of the plaintiff and defendant as to this is not substantially different.

The tire, wheel, and drum are mounted on the cylindrical part called the base plate which is built into and is part of the end of the axle. The axle is approximately 30 inches long, about one inch in diameter, and is obviously made of a hard, durable metal. The other end of the axle away from the wheel has splines which, when the axle is seated, slip into the axle housing and engage the differential gears which are located in a compartment (approximately in the middle of the car between the two rear wheels) called the differential. The bearing first and then the bearing inner retainer are slipped over the splined end of the axle and along the axle to a point about two or three inches from the hub or base plate on the outer end of the axle. The size of the axle at that point is gradually enlarged so that force is required to wedge the bearing and the bearing inner retainer onto the axle with what is referred to as an interference fit. The diameter of the axle shaft at that point is slightly larger than the diameter of the inner race of the bearing and of the hole in the inner retainer. In order to force the bearing and retainer onto the axle and make them for all intents and purposes an integral part thereof, a hydraulic ram press...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rutledge v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 17 de junho de 1985
    ...about the ultimate issue in the case. The trial judge was clearly wrong in so holding. Our Supreme Court held in Redman v. Ford Motor Co., 253 S.C. 266, 170 S.E.2d 207 (1969), and again in Hughes v. Children's Clinic, P.A., 269 S.C. 389, 237 S.E.2d 753 (1977), that a trial judge may in his ......
  • Holloway v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Division
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 14 de fevereiro de 1977
    ...345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 465, 298 N.E.2d 622, 625 (1973); Markel v. Spencer, 5 A.D.2d 400, 171 N.Y.S.2d 770, 775 (1958); Redman v. Ford Motor Co., 253 S.C. 266, 170 S.E.2d 207 (1969).7 Jenkins v. General Motors Corp., 446 F.2d 377 (C.A.5, 1971); Redman v. Ford Motor Co., supra; Rosin v. Internatio......
  • Young v. Tide Craft, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 9 de março de 1978
    ...a witness's qualifications as an expert witness is largely a matter of discretion for the trial judge." Redman v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 253 S.C. 266, 271, 170 S.E.2d 207, 210 (1969). Fowler possesses undergraduate and graduate degrees in psychology. He minored in engineering and had graduat......
  • Hughes v. Children's Clinic, P. A.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 7 de setembro de 1977
    ...retains the power and duty to judge the credibility of the witness and the weight to be given to his opinion. Redman v. Ford Motor Co., 253 S.C. 266, 170 S.E.2d 207 (1969). QUESTION Did the trial court err in failing to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial nisi ? The defendant conte......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT