Rock Island Bank & Trust Co. v. Ford Motor Co., Docket No. 14636

• Decision Date: 22 July 1974
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 14636,1
• Citation: 54 Mich.App. 278,220 N.W.2d 799
• Parties: ROCK ISLAND BANK & TRUST CO., Administrator of the Estate of James Albert Haskins, deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 799

220 N.W.2d 799

54 Mich.App. 278

ROCK ISLAND BANK & TRUST CO., Administrator of the Estate of James Albert Haskins, deceased, et al Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 14636.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

July 22, 1974.

Released for Publication Aug. 20, 1974.

James A. Tuck and Richard M. Goodman, Goodman, Eden, Millender, Goodman & Bedrosian, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Perry J. Seavitt, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before BASHARA, P.J., and McGREGOR and VanVALKENBERG,* JJ.

BASHARA, Judge.

James Haskins and Odie Dowdy were killed and Clarence Wayne Kemp was injured in an automobile collision. Plaintiffs allege that injuries were primarily due to a rear-end collision which resulted in a fire in plaintiff Wayne Kemp's auto. Counts of negligence and breach of warranty were pled, averring that the fuel tank of the 1965 Ford was of inadequate construction and design, constituting a dangerous condition upon the occurrence of a rear-end collision.

The pretrial judge granted plaintiff's motion pursuant to GCR 1963, 310.1(1) for the production of test reports, movies, and photographs relating to 1965 Ford sedans. Defendant stated that no reports relative to crash barrier tests performed on 1965 Fords were made or available.

The trial court then ordered defendant to produce all motion picture films and still photographs taken of crash tests or crashtested vehicles or components thereof on 1965, 1966, and 1967 Ford Custom Galaxies, 500s, and Galaxie 500 LTD vehicles made prior to December 3, 1967. Defendant produced 10 films of crash tests involving 1966 and 1967 Fords. No records, films, or photos of 1965 Fords were produced.

The jury entered a verdict of no cause of action in favor of defendant. By mere happenstance, plaintiff's counsel discovered, after the trial, that reports of crash tests on 1965 Ford autos were made and were still in the possession of the defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial contending that defendant improperly withheld test films on 1965 Fords, therefore not complying with court orders for discovery.

The films which defendant initially said did not exist were turned over to the trial judge subsequent to trial. The judge, after viewing the four films in question, denied the motion for new trial.

The sole issue is whether defendant's failure to comply with a court discovery order entitled plaintiffs to a new trial.

The purpose of discovery is to allow the parties to have access to material which will assist them in preparing and trying their cases. Willard v. Gaston, 333 Mich. 455, 53 N.W.2d 332 (1952). Defendant's counsel believed that the 1965 reports and films were not available. The fact is that they were. We must note that the basic purpose of discovery is to further the ends of justice. Daniels v. Allen Industries, Inc., 391 Mich. 398, 216 N.W.2d 762 (1974).

No Michigan cases have addressed the question presented. Seaboldt v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 290 F.2d 296 (C.A. 3, 1961), however, decided a similar issue. There the Court held that failure of plaintiff's counsel to supply defendant with information concerning back treatment given plaintiff by a chiropractor prior to an accident, in violation of a pretrial order of district court directing lawyers to exchange all medical information and photographs, entitled defendant to a new trial.

In the instant case the trial judge was placed in the awkward position of having to make a determination that the jury would not have reached...