Storey v. Exhaust Specialties & Parts, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1970
• Parties: Dennis J. STOREY, Appellant, v. EXHAUST SPECIALTIES AND PARTS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant, and Foresight Ventures, Inc., a California corporation, Respondent.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 831

464 P.2d 831

255 Or. 151

Dennis J. STOREY, Appellant, v. EXHAUST SPECIALTIES AND PARTS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant, and Foresight Ventures, Inc., a California corporation, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1970.

Decided Feb. 11, 1970.

Bernard Jolles, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Franklin, Bennett, Des Brisay & Jolles, Portland.

Kenneth E. Roberts, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey & Williamson and Ridgeway K. Foley, Jr., Portland.

Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, SLOAN, O'CONNEL, DENECKE and HOLMAN, JJ.

SLOAN, Justice.

This is a product's liability case involving an alleged defect in construction and design of an aluminum automobile wheel. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered on the verdict.

About two weeks before the event occurred which injured plaintiff, he bought four aluminum wheels for his car from defendant the Exhaust Specialties & Parts, Inc. They had been manufactured by defendant Foresight Ventures, Inc. The accident occurred as plaintiff was driving his automobile on an approach onto Interstate 5 in Portland. The approach was 15 feet wide and curbed on both side. While on the approach the left rear wheel of the car bumped the curb. After plaintiff had driven onto the highway and had increased his speed the car started weaving, plaintiff was unable to control the car and it collided with a stanchion or pole supporting a highway sign. It is plaintiff's theory that the bump of the left rear wheel against the curb broke or cracked the wheel which in turn caused the loss of control of the car and the collision. The complaint alleged that the wheel was defective in construction and design.

The first two assignments of error are related. As a part of his case plaintiff called a Mr. Pansky as an adverse witness. Pansky was president of defendant Foresight Ventures, Inc., the manufacturing company. Plaintiff offered to prove by this witness that the standard used to test the strength and quality used in defendant's manufacture of aluminum wheels was the ordinary steel wheel with which most cars are equipped. The offer was refused. By another witness, who had qualified as an expert, plaintiff offered to prove that tests made by the expert witness would indicate that the aliminum wheels on plaintiff's car were not as strong as standard steel wheels. This offer was refused. The only stated basis of the objections to the evidence and of the trial court's ruling was that it was improper to attempt to compare aluminum wheels with steel wheels.

The evidence was offered to meet the required need for evidence expressed in Heaton v. Ford Motor Co., 1967, 248 Or. 467, 435 P.2d 806. The attempt to compare the aluminum wheels with a standard that is commonly used and accepted did not impair the relevance of the evidence. In every day experience people constantly compare the specifications or qualities of one kind of material against another for a given use. And it is not unusual to use a material like steel as a standard of comparison to test the strength of other materials. The relevance of the comparison here is evident because this was the standard or comparison adopted by the defendant manufacturer for its own...