Reusch v. Ford Motor Co.

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEALS, Justice. MILLARD, Justice.
• Citation: Reusch v. Ford Motor Co., 196 Wash. 213, 82 P.2d 556 (Wash. 1938)
• Decision Date: 01 September 1938
• Docket Number: 27112.
• Parties: REUSCH v. FORD MOTOR CO. et al.

82 P.2d 556

196 Wash. 213

REUSCH v. FORD MOTOR CO. et al.

No. 27112.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 1, 1938

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Lloyd L. Black, Judge.

Action by William L. Reusch against the Ford Motor Company and another to recover for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff attempted to reach a place of safety after truck caught on fire. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Vanderveer & Bassett, of Seattle, and Clarence J. Coleman, of Everett for appellant.

Williams & Davis and Parker Williams, all of Everett, for respondents.

BEALS Justice.

During the month of December, 1936, plaintiff, William L. Reusch purchased a Ford motor truck from J. R Simpson, of Everett, a dealer in automobiles and a local distributor representing defendant Ford Motor Company. March 26, 1937, plaintiff was driving the truck, carrying a load of lumber, along a dirt road near the town of Bothell. The truck became mired, and stopped in such a position that it tilted to the right. During plaintiff's efforts to extricate the truck, it caught fire, and in his hurried attempt to reach a place of safety, plaintiff tripped over a log, and fell, injuring his pelvis and spraining his back.

Plaintiff then instituted this action against the Ford Motor Company and J. R. Simpson, alleging that the truck was defective in construction, and that because of these structural defects, gasoline had leaked from certain appliances near the gasoline tank, and that because of other defects in the construction of the muffler and exhaust pipe, sparks had escaped therefrom, igniting the gasoline, thereby damaging the truck and causing severe injuries to his person. The action was tried to the court sitting with a jury, and at the close of plaintiff's case, defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, with the result that the trial court dismissed the action as to both defendants. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial having been denied, judgment was entered dismissing the action, and plaintiff has appealed.

No error is assigned upon the dismissal of the action as to defendant J. R. Simpson. Error is assigned upon the dismissal of the action as against Ford Motor Company.

Appellant contends that the truck was defective and negligently constructed by respondent, in that the gasoline tank was placed under the driver's seat and equipped with an intake pipe located near the lower right-hand corner of the tank, about eight inches above the muffler and exhaust pipe; that both the intake and an electric gauge connection with the tank, which was located directly under the driver's seat, were so negligently constructed and attached that gasoline leaked therefrom during the ordinary use of the truck; and that the muffler and exhaust pipe were so negligently placed and connected that sparks would escape therefrom and ignite the leaking gasoline.

Respondent answered appellant's amended complaint with denials, and affirmatively pleaded contributory negligence on the part of appellant. The trial court held that as matter of law it appeared from appellant's evidence that there was no such defect in the construction of the truck as to constitute negligence, or render the operation of the truck dangerous, and also held that appellant was barred from recovery by reason of his contributory negligence.

Appellant relies upon the well established rule that in passing upon a challenge to the sufficiency of a plaintiff's evidence in a case tried to a jury, the challenge should be denied if there is any evidence, or reasonable inference from the evidence, which could sustain a verdict in the plaintiff's favor.

The evidence concerning the construction of the truck shows that the gasoline tank was placed under the driver's seat; that the muffler was located below and near the righthand side of the gasoline tank; that approximately two inches back of the muffler, the muffler pipe slipped over the exhaust pipe, the connection being reinforced by a clamp. Appellant argues that the connecting pipes, not having been welded together, became separated, probably by vibration, thereby permitting the escape of sparks. He also contends that the intake pipe, or gooseneck, located above the muffler, was so negligently constructed as to leak, and that, particularly when the truck tilted, gasoline would run down on to the muffler, and along the muffler to the slip connection joining the muffler and the exhaust pipe; that when the full force of the engine was exerted, flames would be forced through the muffler into the slip connection and the exhaust pipe; and that the fire above referred to was caused by the escape of a spark at the point of the slip connection, which ignited the gasoline. Appellant argues that, had the joint been welded, the danger of escaping sparks would have been avoided. It appears that during recent years, the clamp slipjoint method has been generally, if not universally, used in automobile construction.

Appellant testified that several days after his purchase of the truck, and while using the same in his operations near Everett, the truck became badly mired down, and gasoline commenced to leak from the intake pipe at its point of connection with the gasoline tank. Upon returning, to Everett that evening, appellant complained of the leak to the distributor of Ford cars, and the connection was tightened with a wrench. Shortly thereafter, appellant discovered that the gasoline gauge, which was fastened to the top of the gasoline tank, was leaking, and the truck was several times returned to the distributor, who endeavored to close the leak. Notwithstanding these efforts, gasoline continued to run from the gauge connection on to the floor of the cab. Appellant further testified that the floor of the cab was generally saturated with gasoline, but that the distributor shop foreman had told him that this was not dangerous, as long as appellant did not smoke. He further testified that he had been in the garage business some thirty years, had been a shop foreman, and had owned and operated approximately twenty automobiles, including six or seven trucks, and that he himself had frequently repaired his own cars.

Appellant stated that on the day of the accident he had several loads of lumber to move. He had completed one trip, and was moving the second load, when he stopped to remove an obstruction on the road. When he stopped the truck, it stuck in a deep rut, and tilted strongly to the right. On the day of the accident, appellant had not noticed any leakage prior to this time. Because of the leaning position of the truck, a considerable quantity of gasoline leaked from the gooseneck, appellant's attention having been directed to the gasoline running out on the right-hand side of the truck under the running board. Appellant further testified that he worked approximately fifteen minutes in clearing the road, and then for almost half an hour endeavored to extricate his truck. In his attempt to move the truck, he naturally exerted its full power. After many vain attempts to move, appellant finally put the truck in tractor gear, and succeeded in pulling out of the mudhole. After he had proceeded about forty feet, he noticed a fire toward his right, in the neighborhood of the gooseneck. After an attempt to smother the flame with his jacket, he jumped from the cab, and fell, receiving the injuries of which he complains. Notwithstanding these injuries, appellant, with the assistance of another man, succeeded in extinguishing the fire, which, however, caused considerable damage to the truck.

It appears from the evidence that the slipclamp method of joining exhaust (or tail-pipe) and muffler pipe is commonly used. Such a joint, or, indeed, any joint, might be loosened by violent, continued vibration; as one witness stated, 'vibration would work anything loose.' We find no basis in the record which would support a finding that the slip-joint on appellant's truck ever became loose or that any spark or flame escaped therefrom. The evidence is to the effect that gasoline, coming in contact with a hot metal surface, will vaporize, but will not take fire. Several witnesses testified that some Ford 1937 trucks, similar to that purchased by appellant, leaked both at the gooseneck and gasoline gauge joints, and appellant vigorously argues that the evidence shows that the construction of these trucks was so inherently negligent and defective as to render respondent liable in this action.

On this phase of the case, appellant relies upon the Restatement of the Law of Torts, vol. 2, p. 1084, § 398, where the rule is stated as follows: 'A manufacturer of a chattel made under a plan or design which makes it dangerous for the uses for which it is manufactured is subject to liability to...