Sisco v. Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1971
• Docket Number: Nos. 55247,No. 1,55250,s. 55247,1
• Citation: 462 S.W.2d 658
• Parties: Eddie Louis SISCO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NU PROCESS BRAKE ENGINEERS, INC., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Power Brakes, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent. Joseph GONZALES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NU PROCESS BRAKE ENGINEERS, INC., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Power Brakes, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 658

462 S.W.2d 658

Eddie Louis SISCO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NU PROCESS BRAKE ENGINEERS, INC., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Power Brakes, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.

Joseph GONZALES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NU PROCESS BRAKE ENGINEERS, INC., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Power Brakes, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.

Nos. 55247, 55250.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Murphy & Kortenhof, Edward E. Murphy, Jr., St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Barnard, Timm & McDaniel, Walter F. Timm, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.

WELBORN, Commissioner.

Appeals in consolidated causes from judgment of trial court dismissing cross-claims of defendant-appellant Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc., against defendant-respondent Power Brakes, Inc.

Eddie Louis Sisco and Joseph Gonzales, employees of Mrazek Van and Storage Service Company, filed separate suits for personal injuries, each alleging $25,000 damages, arising out of an accident involving a Mrazek van in which they were riding. The suits were brought against Nu Process and Power Brakes, on the basis of the following identical allegations in each petition:

'III

'On or about September 17, 1964, at the instance of the Mrazek Company, the defendant Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc. performed certain repair work to and upon the aforementioned truck, including the installation of a rebuilt power cluster to be used as a part of the operating mechanism of the front wheel brakes of said truck; that said power cluster was theretofore rebuilt manufactured and sold by the defendant Power Brakes, Inc. to the defendant Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc. for the purpose of installation in the specific type of operating mechanism contained within said truck, and the purpose, function and use of said power cluster were such that if the same were defective there would be imminent danger to persons either driving or riding within said truck; that at the time said power cluster was sold by the defendant Power Brakes, Inc. to the defendant Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc., and at the time the same was installed in the aforementioned truck by the defendant Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc., said power cluster was defective and thereby dangerous when used for the purpose for which the same was manufactured, rebuilt and installed in that the push rod, an integral part of said power cluster, was not the appropriate and proper size for the adjacent and connecting component parts and it would thereby not operate efficiently and properly in bringing about braking action upon said truck, but instead the same was reasonably likely to cause the brakes to operate in a grabbing and locking fashion and to thereby cause the truck to unexpectedly and violently reduce speed and jerk in the manner aforementioned.

'IV

'At all times herein mentioned, said truck and the aforementioned power cluster were being operated in a manner and were in use for a purpose for which the same were manufactured, rebuilt and installed.

'V

'As a direct and proximate result of the separate and concurring breach of implied warranty of the defendants as aforesaid, and the action of said truck as set forth in paragraph number II, plaintiff was caused to sustain injury and damage * * *.

'VI

'More particularly, the defendant Power Brakes, Inc. impliedly warranted to both the users and consumers of its said product, to-wit: the said rebuilt power cluster, that said product was not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to said users and consumers or their respective property. Plaintiff further states with particularity that the 'specific type of operating mechanism,' referred to in paragraph III, is the brake system of said truck and that the 'adjacent and connecting component parts,' also referred to in paragraph III, are those parts of the power cluster and braking system of said truck which contain, hold and come in contact with the push rod.'

Nu Process filed an answer admitting that it worked on the brakes of a Mrazek truck on or about September 17, 1964, and that it installed in the truck a 'certain mechanism' which it obtained from Power Brakes. Otherwise Nu Process denied the allegations of plaintiff's petition. Power Brakes filed a general denial and a defense of contributory negligence as its responsive pleading.

Nu Process filed a cross-claim against Power Brakes in which it alleged that each plaintiff 'filed a suit for personal injuries allegedly resulting from an occurrence on or about November 2, 1964, according to his 5th amended petition, and in said law suit plaintiff charges defendants with breach of warranty and negligence, all as set out in plaintiff's 5th amended petition filed herein.

'4. Cross-claimant Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc. denies that the occurrence mentioned in plaintiff's petition and his alleged injuries were the result of any breach of warranty, negligence, or both, on the part of this defendant, but, pleading hypothetically, states that if cross-claimant is liable to plaintiff, its liability is a direct result of the active, primary and affirmative breach of warranty, negligence, or both, of defendant Power Brakes, Inc. as set out in plaintiff's 5th amended petition and cross-claimant is entitled to indemnity from defendant Power Brakes, Inc. for any sum which plaintiff may recover against cross-claimant.

'5. Defendant Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc. further states that defendant Power Brakes, Inc. designed, manufactured, and assembled the power brake cluster mentioned in plaintiff's 5th amended petition. This defendant did nothing to alter the design, manufacture or assembly of said power brake cluster, and if same is defective, defendant Nu Process Brake Engineers, Inc. would be only secondarily liable, and defendant Power Brakes, Inc. primarily liable.'

Nu Process asked judgment against Power Brakes for any recovery by plaintiffs against it.

Upon motion of Power Brakes, the trial...