Stuckey v. Young Exploration Co.

• Decision Date: 03 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 49649,49649
• Citation: 1978 OK 128,586 P.2d 726
• Parties: Larry Mack STUCKEY, by and through his guardian, Janet Stuckey, Appellant, v. YOUNG EXPLORATION COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Gerald M. Young Machine Co., an Oklahoma Corporation, International Harvester Company, a Delaware Corporation, Young Northern Exploration Company, an Oklahoma Corporation, and City Spring Works, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 726

586 P.2d 726

1978 OK 128

Larry Mack STUCKEY, by and through his guardian, Janet Stuckey, Appellant, v. YOUNG EXPLORATION COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Gerald M Young Machine Co., an Oklahoma Corporation, International Harvester Company, a Delaware Corporation, Young Northern Exploration Company, an Oklahoma Corporation, and City Spring Works, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Appellees.

No. 49649.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 3, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1978.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Raymond Naifeh, District judge.

Appeal by plaintiff in a personal injury suit from order of trial court sustaining motions for summary judgment in favor of defendants International Harvester Company, who manufactured, and City Spring Works, who repaired the truck involved in the accident in which the injuries were sustained. AFFIRMED AS TO INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER: REVERSED AND REMANDED AS TO CITY SPRING WORKS.

John M. Merritt, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Russell B. Holloway and William C. McAlister, of Rhodes, Hieronymus, Holloway & Wilson, Oklahoma City, for appellee, International Harvester Co.

Harry R. Palmer, Jr., Oklahoma City, for appellee, City Spring Works, Inc.

PER CURIAM:

We decide two issues in this appeal, one concerning the extent to which a manufacturer may be held liable in a products' liability suit after the product has undergone substantial modification, and second, the effect of the imposition of a duty on one who undertakes repair and maintenance of a chattel, to either correct or warn of an unsafe condition.

This case was decided on summary judgment, ¹ granted after plaintiff filed his sixth amended petition. Depositions and affidavits are extensive.

Plaintiff's sixth amended petition alleged Young Northern Exploration Company (Northern), purchased a new 1961 "chassis cab" truck ² from International Harvester Company (International). Gerald M. Young Machine Company (Young Machine) completed the truck as requested by Northern by placing a drilling rig on the chassis. Poindexter Drilling Company (Poindexter) purchased the truck from Northern in 1965. In March of 1971, at the direction of Poindexter, Young Machine removed the drilling rig, replacing it with a water tank. ³ Neither the suspension nor steering systems had been replaced or modified since purchase. At one time the truck was returned to Young Machine because the frame appeared to be "bowing". Young Machine attempted to correct the problem by shoring up the frame. Later the truck developed "looseness in the steering" and "play in the front end". It was taken to City Spring Works, Inc. (City Spring) for repair and alignment. City Spring, as noted on its repair invoice made charges for wheel alignment and steering drag link adjustment. The truck was returned to Poindexter as repaired with a notation that it needed a new steering coupler. ⁴ No other warning or statement was offered by City Spring reference any steering or drag link wear. The truck was later safety checked but no examination of the steering mechanism itself was made.

In April of 1972, nine days after inspection, the accident occurred. Plaintiff, an employee of Poindexter, was driving the truck on an interstate highway when he lost control, struck a curb and overturned.

Plaintiff commenced this suit against multiple defendants including International, Young Machine, Northern and City Spring. International and City Spring are the only defendants remaining in this appeal.

The cause of the accident is in dispute. Plaintiff claims the drag link separated from the steering arm causing him to lose all steering control when he executed a sharp left turning movement. Deposition testimony indicates the separation could have been the Result of the accident instead of the Cause. However the cause of the accident is not material for the purposes of this appeal and is not argued. International and City Spring filed motions for summary judgments based on their denial of responsibility for any malfunctioning of the steering mechanism. Trial court sustained both motions and plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff contends record shows there exist issues of fact that must be submitted to the jury. Thus both motions for summary judgment should have been denied. He cites Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 529 P.2d 489 (Okl.1974). This decision states issues of Negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary judgment either for or against a plaintiff. It quotes 73 Am.Jur.2d Summary Judgment § 6, ". . . even though there is no dispute about how an accident occurred, the presence or absence of negligence often remains a question of fact which requires a trial under traditional principles of the law of negligence." If reasonable men in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment might reach different conclusions upon consideration of pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, admissions, depositions and the like, summary judgment is improper. Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943, 58 A.L.R.3rd 814 (Okl.1973).

We believe this to be applicable to the judgment in favor of City Spring. Although some attempt was made by plaintiff to hold City Spring liable under strict liability, the only basis for judgment against that particular defendant must be negligence.

The action however against International is based on manufacturers' products liability and we believe its motion for summary judgment was properly sustained as will be explained later.

One of plaintiff's witnesses who examined the truck after the accident, stated by affidavit that the steering drag link ⁵ was separated from the steering arm of the truck. If the drag link and steering arm become separated, then all steering control is lost. He found the cause of the separation of the drag link was wear to the lip of the drag link socket resulting from over deflection of the springs when the front-end was overloaded by installation of the water tank. This caused the drag link and steering parts to come in contact under strain and pressure, wearing away the lip of the opening of drag link.

Plaintiff alleged wear was the result of improper design by International in not foreseeing the truck might be overloaded. He further alleged City Spring should have been aware of wear to the drag link and either repaired it or warned of the dangerous condition.

City Spring undertook to repair the truck's steering system. Deposition testimony shows such repair necessitates inspection and adjustment of the drag link. City Spring's employees testified it was their usual and customary procedure to inspect a drag link any time they worked on the front end of a truck. Depositions indicated looseness and play would be apparent upon a cursory inspection of steering mechanism. It should have been obvious to City Spring's suspension expert that the drag link would have to be replaced or the customer warned. The only repair noted by City Spring consisted of alignment of the front end and adjustment of the drag link.

Expert examination of the drag link after the accident showed abnormal wear. Although the wear would certainly be apparent to anyone who worked on the steering and suspension system, it probably would be unknown to the ordinary driver of the truck. This situation was not corrected by City Spring or called to the attention of Poindexter or its employees.

In Barnhart v. Freeman Equipment Co., 441 P.2d 993 (Okl.1965) we recognized that a repairer of chattels has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to cause bodily harm to one whose person or property might reasonably be expected to be endangered by probable use of the chattel after...