Williams v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1966
• Docket Number: No. 32329,32329
• Citation: 411 S.W.2d 443
• Parties: Rose Burns WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and McMahon Ford Company, a Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 443

411 S.W.2d 443

Rose Burns WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and McMahon Ford Company a Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 32329.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Dec. 20, 1966.

Motions for Rehearing or to Transfer to Supreme Court Denied

Jan. 17, 1967.

Application to Transfer Denied March 13, 1967.

Robertson, DeVoto & Wieland, Leo C. DeVoto, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant Ford.

Melville A. Ochsner, St. Louis, for appellant McMahon.

Bahn & Saitz, Robert W. Saitz, St. Louis, for respondent.

CLEMENS, Commissioner.

This appeal by the defendant automobile manufacturer and retailer challenges the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence to make a case against them on her theory of implied warranty of fitness; they also challenge instructions given and refused.

Rose Burns Williams, a 24-year-old secretary, selected a new, black, 1961 Ford Thunderbird convertible from the defendant McMahon Ford Company's showroom. She paid about $4,000 for it. From the start there was trouble with the power steering. On the fourth day after McMahon delivered the car to her, Mrs. Williams was severely injured when she drove the car into a tree. This happened, she says, because the power steering mechanism failed to work. She sued both McMahon and the Ford Motor Company on the theory of implied warranty of fitness, and got a $15,000 verdict and judgment against both. In determining submissibility the evidence will be viewed favorably to plaintiff; she will be given the benefit of any part of the defendants' evidence favorable to her which is not contradicted by her own testimony or contrary to her own fundamental theory of recovery. We will disregard the defendants' evidence unfavorable to the plaintiff. Newell v. Peters, Mo.App., 406 S.W.2d 814(8).

On February 1, 1961, defendant Ford Motor Company manufactured and thereafter delivered the Thunderbird to its St. Louis retail dealer, McMahon Ford Company. Plaintiff bought the car from McMahon on Friday, March 24, 1961, and on the same day McMahon's salesman Raymond Peto delivered it to plaintiff at her office. Peto went with Mrs. Williams on a trial drive. She drove around the block and they noticed the power steering was 'tight' and made 'a funny noise.' Peto had first noticed this trouble while driving to Mrs. Williams' office to deliver the car; but he did not want to lose the sale, so he told her it was just because 'the car was new' and 'it would work itself out.' Mrs. Williams had experience driving a 1960 Thunderbird owned by her fiance (now her husband). They drove the new car on several short trips over the weekend. The steering trouble kept getting worse--it was noisy, it was tight and binding on turns, and after making turns it wouldn't come back straight: 'You'd have to help it back.'

Monday morning Mrs. Williams phoned Mr. Peto about McMahon's fixing the steering. Tuesday morning he got the car at her office and drove it to McMahon's shop. He again noted the steering trouble and reported it to McMahon's 'service writer.' At mid-afternoon Peto saw someone working on the car with the hood up. Later, he tried to drive it but 'couldn't get it off the lot.' Peto then complained to McMahon's service manager, Arnold Trummer, who immediately made some corrections under the hood and filled the steering unit with oil.

The transcript shows that defendants' mechanics and engineers verbosely described the steering assemblies in minute detail. Their testimony was illustrated by Ford's exhibits: the steering assemblies, a drawing and a chart. No doubt the jury was aided by these exhibits, but they have not been lodged here. The power steering system used on the 1961 Thunderbird was 'full-power, 100% assist' and was described as an 'integral power steering system,' in that the hydraulic power system was enclosed in one unit with the steering gear box.

When the service order was written Tuesday morning, the car went to McMahon's mechanic Joe Schmader with orders from service manager Arnold Trummer to fix a leak in one of the two hydraulic power lines. Schmader found that leak and another one at the oil reservoir. It was after mechanic Schmader had fixed these leaks that Mr. Peto tried to drive the car and again complained to the service manager, Mr. Trummer. Trummer drove the car himself and found the steering mechanism was noisy, indicating that the fluid level was low and that there was air in the steering mechanism. His inspection also showed there was a leak in the housing of the steering gear. This was caused by a break in a washer, which allowed the oil to escape when under its operating pressure of 750 pounds per square inch. The valve-sleeve locking screw, where the defective washer was found, is part of the mechanism that controls two parts that feed fluid to either side of a piston through the sleeve; this sleeve moves back and forth approximately 45/1000 of an inch in directing the flow of the fluid to one side or the other of the piston, depending on which way the steering wheel is turned. Trummer replaced the defective washer with one taken from the power steering mechanism of another Thunderbird. The oil was quite low, so the line was cleared and refilled.

Mr. Peto then delivered the car to Mrs. Williams at her office. Enroute, he noticed the power steering still did not respond properly on sharp turns, but he said nothing about it to Mrs. Williams. After work she drove ten blocks to her home in Webster Groves; she noticed that although the steering was easier it still bound on turns, and after making turns she would have to 'help the wheels straighten out.' Shortly after five o'clock she parked the car in the street near her home.

This street was narrow and parking was allowed only on one side. Mrs. Williams parked on the north side, headed east. Thus, the left side of her car was at the curb. About nine o'clock Mrs. Williams started to drive away. Just ahead of her was the entrance to a private driveway, and beyond that was another parked car, 15 to 20 feet in front of her. She drove forward and to the right, turning the wheels to clear the car parked ahead of her. As she cleared the parked car her estimated speed was 10--15 miles per hour. Mrs. Williams then tried to turn the wheels back to the left but they wouldn't turn. The last thing she remembered was 'going for the brakes.' The car continued across the street, jumped the curb, and hit a large tree 52 feet away from her starting point. Mrs. Williams regained consciousness in a hospital. Under direct and cross-examination Mrs. Williams described the incident with these answers:

'I got into the car and I started the motor. I put the car into drive and I turned the wheel to the right to clear the automobile in front of me and I started to accelerate and I couldn't turn the wheel back to the left.'

'* * * and when I tried to steer the wheel back to the left to straighten my car, it wouldn't turn, it just kept going straight * * *.'

'When I tried to turn it back to the left, it was just like it was locked into position.'

'No, I could not turn it.'

'Yes, it kept going straight because I could not turn the car any at all, so it just stayed in the same pattern that I had pulled out.'

On its own initiative McMahon took charge of Mrs. Williams' car immediately after the collision, and hauled it to its garage. The steering linkage--the mechanism from the power steering unit out to the wheels--had been wrecked by the impact. McMahon's mechanics disconnected the steering wheel, steering column and the entire power steering assembly. McMahon's mechanics and a Ford technician made some tests; they found the power steering oil supply was between the 'full' and 'add' marks. This loss of oil was unexplained. Then, at Ford's request, McMahon shipped the disconnected parts to Ford at Detroit for further testing, which was done several months later. At time of trial McMahon still had the car and Ford still had the disconnected steering assemblies.

Ford's service department had published a shop manual for use by dealers and their mechanics in servicing 1961 Thunderbird automobiles. It had a table relating to trouble shooting problems of steering gears, and as one of the problems it described a symptom called 'binding or poor recovery' and listed possible causes for this symptom: 'incorrect steering gear adjustment, binding steering linkage, incorrect front wheel alignment, insufficient pump pressure, valve spool binding or out of adjustment.' The term 'hard steering' was also used in the manual and its possible causes were listed: 'front tire pressure low, incorrect front wheel alignment, incorrect steering gear adjustment, binding steering linkage, lack of lubrication, insufficient pump pressure, air in the system, faulty valve spool, obstruction within the steering gear.'

Walter J. Been testified for Mrs. Williams. He had special training and experience in steering mechanisms, including the 1961 Thunderbird. He gave four reasons for failure of the wheels to turn:

'Q. (By Mr. Saitz) * * * Now, Mr. Been, based upon your experience in the field of alignment and steering in the past twenty years, do you have an opinion, based upon that experience and training, as to whether or not--of I should ask it this way, what the competent producing cause of this failure to respond to the operator's effort to turn the vehicle to the left would be?

'THE COURT: Mr. Been, I said you could give your opinion and then explain it. Let's have your opinion first. What was the producing cause of this?

'THE WITNESS: Very good. Well, what I am trying to do, Your Honor, I am trying to explain why wheel alignment--

'THE COURT: I am not asking you about wheel alignment. You said you could express an opinion as to the cause of this failure there and then if there is some explanation that is needed, you may make it.

'THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe there is four reasons for failure. One of...