Zahn v. Ford Motor Company
Decision Date | 13 August 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 5-57 Civ. 7.,5-57 Civ. 7. |
Citation | 164 F. Supp. 936 |
Parties | Marvin D. ZAHN, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff (Clarence A. Dailey, Third Party Defendant). |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Ryan, Ryan & Ebert, by C. A. Ryan, Brainerd, Minn., for plaintiff.
Mahoney & Mahoney, by G. P. Mahoney, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant and third party plaintiff.
Rosengren, Rufer & Blatti, by Robert O. Blatti, Fergus Falls, Minn., for third party defendant.
In this diversity case plaintiff at trial had a verdict in the sum of $26,350 against the Ford Motor Company (hereinafter referred to as Ford). The third party defendant, Clarence A. Dailey (hereinafter referred to as Dailey), was exonerated from liability to Ford by special verdict.
Ford has moved in the alternative for judgment in its favor, or for a new trial, upon the following grounds:
The instant case was tried to court and jury at the May 1958 general term. The motions were orally argued by counsel at the June 6, 1958, special term. Briefs (the last of which was received July 17, 1958) by all parties followed in due course and the points and authorities relied on are before the court and will be discussed under the four heads above relied upon by movant.
Plaintiff, 27 years of age and a guest in Dailey's Ford automobile, met with personal injury on April 28, 1956, causing loss of sight in his right eye. The facts are simply to the effect that as plaintiff sat to the right of Dailey, between two and three o'clock on a clear afternoon, with Dailey driving at a rate of 45 to 50 miles per hour on a tarvia surfaced highway (Highway 218) in Minnesota, a car was observed approaching on a cross road to the left of 218 and towards a stop sign (there being stop signs on both sides of 218 against cross traffic). Visibility was good. Dailey saw the car approaching the arterial highway from his left and assumed the driver of the car would stop as required.1
The stranger drove through the stop sign with the result that when Dailey applied his brakes and swung his car to avoid what seemed to be an imminent collision, plaintiff, who at the time was bending forward to deposit the ash of a cigarette in the receptacle provided therefor2, was thrown to the side and forward, striking the ash tray with such force as to knock it off its base to the floor of the car. Dailey testified the ash tray was examined by him following the accident and then for the first time he discovered "a jagged edge on the right side."
Plaintiff was taken by Dailey to a hospital in Brainerd "instead of trying to catch this other car", said Dailey. Upon rendering first aid at the hospital, the attending physician referred plaintiff to Dr. W. T. Wenner, a qualified medical doctor specializing in matters of the eye. Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Wenner at the hospital in St. Cloud, Minnesota, on the day of the accident, and Dr. Wenner describes what he observed and what followed in these words:
At the time of the accident plaintiff's employment was that of "an equipment operator on construction projects, highway construction and power lines, * * running cats, bulldozers and heavy trucks."
That Ford manufactured and sold to Dailey the automobile in which plaintiff was riding is not disputed. Ford contends "that Dailey's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injury to Zahn's eye."3
Confronted with the facts of the instant case, the question of causation was one wholly within the province of the jury. In this respect the court cannot substitute itself for the triers of the facts, despite persuasiveness of counsel in attempting to allocate blame and proximate cause to the negligence of Dailey alone. The choice, as between conflicting versions as to the cause of an accident, and to the inferences to be drawn from the facts of the case are questions for the jury.4 It must be assumed that the jury resolved all facts in controversy in favor of the prevailing parties.5 Ford's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and the weight thereof is not supported by the record. In my opinion the evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts.
This being a diversity case, the substantive law of Minnesota is applicable.6 Ford sold the automobile in question to Dailey. Plaintiff must be characterized as a stranger to the contract of sale, and hence, the only action plaintiff can maintain is one ex delicto.7 This was the theory of the plaintiff by pleading, proof and trial, and the court charged the jury in that respect as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Owen v. United States
...the court affirmed an award of $45,573.72 to a 26-year-old seaman for loss of virtually all sight of one eye. In Zahn v. Ford Motor Company, 164 F.Supp. 936 (D.Minn.1958), aff'd, 265 F.2d 729 (8th Cir. 1959), the court gave judgment on a verdict of $26,350.00 to a 27-year-old construction e......