Weller v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-8908-CV-426,49A02-8908-CV-426 |
| Citation | 570 N.E.2d 1341 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,853 Michael WELLER, Shirey & Sons Trucking, Inc. and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. MACK TRUCKS, INC. and Michiana Mack, Inc., Appellees-Defendants. 1 |
Robert H. Johnson, Raymond L. Faust, Norris, Choplin & Johnson, Indianapolis, for appellants-plaintiffs.
Donald D. Levenhagen, Keith A. Kinney, Hill Fulwider McDowell Funk & Matthews, P.C., Indianapolis, for appellees-defendants.
Michael Weller, Shirey & Sons Trucking, Inc., and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (collectively "Weller") appeal from a judgment in favor of Mack Trucks, Inc. and Michiana Mack, Inc. (collectively "Mack") in a product liability case. We affirm.
Was the instruction on the defense supported by the evidence?
Weller filed this product liability claim 2 against Mack, alleging that a semi-truck accident occurred due to a defect in a castle nut in the steering system joint. During the jury trial, Sylvester Mazur, a former TRW 3 employee who was familiar with the design and manufacture of the castle nut on Weller's semi-truck, testified about industry custom and practice, the safety record of such parts, and the quality control and testing performed upon the castle nuts. David Jeffery and Brad Toole also testified about the lack of prior accidents and the industry standards regarding flaws in the castle nuts.
The trial court instructed the jury on the defense as follows:
" 'State of the art' is a defense in this case. Product sellers such as defendants are not subject to liability if their product was 'state of the art'.
Whenever a product causes harm, it is a defense that the manufacture, [sic] and inspection of the product was in conformity with the generally recognized state of the art at the time the product was manufactured.
The state of the art with respect to a particular product refers to the generally recognized technological environment at the time of its manufacture. This technological environment includes the scientific knowledge, economic feasibility and the practicalities of implementation when the product was manufactured.
You are instructed that if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the truck in question was manufactured in conformity with the generally recognized state of the art, then your verdict may be for the defendants."
Record at 38. The jury returned a general verdict for Mack.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Weller contends the evidence does not support the giving of the defense instruction. The giving of jury instructions is a matter within the trial court's discretion, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Wielgus v. Lopez (1988), Ind.App., 525 N.E.2d 1272, 1274-75. In order to determine if the affirmative defense instruction is supported by the evidence, Weller suggests that we utilize the two-step analysis used to examine sufficiency of the evidence for a motion for judgment on the evidence. 4 Weller failed to find the sufficiency standard for the giving of an instruction stated in Antcliff v. Datzman (1982), Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 114, 122, trans. denied. We reject Weller's invitation to apply the sufficiency standard for a motion for judgment on the evidence, and we follow Antcliff. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the appellee and any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If any evidence supports the instruction, we will uphold the trial court's giving of the instruction. Antcliff, 436 N.E.2d at 122.
At trial, Weller objected to the instruction:
Record at 643-44. Upon review of the record, the objection appears to claim only that the use of castle nuts in the steering joint and the manufacturing process had not been shown to be "state of the art". More particularly, Weller contends the evidence merely indicated industry practice and did not provide any standard by which to measure "state of the art" which took into account the factors enumerated in the objection. A party claiming error in the giving of an instruction is limited to his stated objection at trial. Carrier Agency v. Top Quality Building Prod., Inc. (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 739, 744, trans. denied. Weller's argument on appeal focuses upon an alleged manufacturing defect of the particular castle nut in Weller's truck. Weller's trial objection did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaiser v. Johnson & Johnson & Ethicon, Inc., 2:17-cv-00114-PPS-JEM
...product is state of the art." Wade v. Terex-Telelect, Inc. 966 N.E.2d 186, 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Weller v. Mack Trucks, Inc. , 570 N.E.2d 1341, 1343 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) ). A defendant must make a showing that no other similarly advanced technology existed at the time the product......
-
Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH v. Stein
...of jury instructions is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion, which we review only for abuse. Weller v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (1991), Ind.App., 570 N.E.2d 1341. An instruction tendered by a party must be a correct statement of the law and be supported by the evidence. Wielgus v. L......
-
Trytko v. Hubbell, Inc.
...law, the trial court must give an instruction if the instruction is supported by the evidence. Id. (citing Weller v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 570 N.E.2d 1341, 1343 (Ind.App. 1st Dist.1991)). As a threshold matter, however, a party may not contest a district court's refusal to use a proposed instr......
-
Superbird Farms, Inc. v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
...Under Indiana law, the trial court must give an instruction if the instruction is supported by the evidence. Weller v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 570 N.E.2d 1341, 1343 (Ind.App.1991). Thus, we must determine whether the Indiana Supreme Court's pronouncements in First Federal concerning good faith a......
-
CHAPTER 16
...1974).[16] Id.[17] Id. [18] See, e.g., Ind. Code § 33-1-1.5-4(b)(4); Ky. Rev. Stat. 411.310(2).[19] Compare Weller v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 570 N.E.2d 1341 (Ind. App. 1991), with Connelly v. Gen. Motors Corp., 184 Ill. App. 3d 378, 132 Ill. Dec. 630, 540 N.E.2d 370 (1989).[20] Restatement (Sec......
-
Avoiding product liability claims: how much testing is enough?
...283 N.W.2d 25, 35 (Neb. 1979) (concluding that industry standards are one factor to be considered in state-of-the-art analysis). (33.)570 N.E.2d 1341 (Ind. App. (34.)Id. at 1343-44. See also Feldman v. Lederle Lab., 460 A.2d 203, 204 (N.J.Super. 1983) (defendant proved there was no scientif......