BROTHERS v GENERAL MOTORS CORP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

82-267 NO. I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA 1983 J E A N B R O T H E R S , KATHY B R O T H E R S , a n d S T A T E FARM MUTUAL A U T O M O B I L E I N C . , COMPANY, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , VS. GENERAL MOTORS C O R P O R A T I O N , a n d B I L L A T K I N VOLKSWAGEN, I N C . , D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . Appeal from: C o u n s e l of D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y of S i l v e r B o w H o n o r a b l e A r n o l d O l s e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : W e l l c o m e & Frost, Bozeman, M o n t a n a A l b e r t Frost argued, B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t s : Poore Law Firm, B u t t e , Montana J a m e s P o o r e , I11 a r g u e d , B u t t e , Submitted: Decided: Filed: FEB 1 8 5983 ----- 4 C l e r k Montana January 18, 1983 February 18, 1983 J u s t i c e L . C. G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . Mr. P l a i n t i f f s brought and n e g l i g e n c e County, from a c a r a c c i d e n t . for injuries resulting Court District action in strict products l i a b i l i t y this of granted the Second District, Judicial summary j u d g m e n t f o r defendants The Silver and Bow plaintiffs appeal. On J u n e 1976 Pontiac Missoula, 1977, 22, LeMans B r o t h e r s was d r i v i n g Jean station at Montana, plaintiff wagon on about 50 m i l e s Interstate per hour. 90 The her toward was road Her d a u g h t e r and g r a n d s o n were p a s s e n g e r s i n t h e c l e a r and d r y . car. A s s h e was d r i v i n g a r o u n d a g r a d u a l b e n d , J e a n B r o t h e r s f e l t a tremor in the s t e e r i n g wheel, t h e n two s h o r t bumps, The car f a i l e d to go a r o u n d suddenly unable to t u r n t h e wheel. the bend, moving from the right was and lane, into the l e f t lane, and down i n t o t h e m e d i a n d i t c h . The i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r f o u n d n o e v i d e n c e of and d i d n o t issue a ticket t o Mrs. Brothers. d r i v e r error H e noted on t h e a c c i d e n t r e p o r t t h a t t h e c a r ' s l e f t f r o n t t i r e was f l a t and t h a t its deflation Mrs. may Brothers have and pulled her the husband car had off of purchased the the road. car in November 1 9 7 6 , from d e f e n d a n t B i l l A t k i n V o l k s w a g e n . The car was u s e d , w i t h a n o d o m e t e r r e a d i n g of a b o u t 3 , 5 0 0 m i l e s . A t the t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e c a r had b e e n d r i v e n a b o u t 7 , 6 0 0 m i l e s . car's warranty history revealed no significant The mechanical p r o b l e m s or r e p a i r s . A mechanic the front-end wrong. The a t a front-end of the steering r e p a i r shop i n Missoula looked a t car, plaintiff's column was B r o t h e r s q s o n who is a m e c h a n i c . but removed could and find examined H e f o u n d n o t h i n g wrong. nothing by Mrs. A pro- f e s s o r o f m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g examined t h e s t e e r i n g column and a l s o f o u n d n o t h i n g wrong. None of the other potential experts b r o u g h t f o r w a r d by a p p e l l a n t s g a v e t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e car was defective. car The was taken a wrecking to yard and has long since disappeared. The g e n e r a l i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e summary j u d g m e n t f o r d e f e n d a n t s was p r o p e r may be b r o k e n down i n t o two s u b s i d i a r y i s s u e s : W h e t h e r a p p e l l a n t s m e t t h e i r b u r d e n to show t h a t a d e f e c t 1. i n t h e car c a u s e d t h e i n j u r y and t h a t t h e d e f e c t was t r a c e a b l e t o the respondents. q - t -W h e t h e r r e s i p- s -a- -l -o -- u i --u r s h o u l d be a p p l i e d t o t h i s case. 2. A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Mrs. B r o t h e r s and h e r d a u g h t e r , as w e l l as t h e good c o n d i t i o n of t h e c a r , is s u f f i c i e n t f c e e v i d e n c e t o make a p r i m a -a- i- c a s e i n s t r i c t p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y . According to a p p e l l a n t s , the vehicle's t h i s evidence raises t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t s t e e r i n g mechanism was d e f e c t i v e i n e i t h e r d e s i g n o r manufacture. W e do n o t a g r e e . I n a p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n , t h e p l a i n t i f f m u s t show t h r e e 1) things: was i n j u r e d b y t h e p r o d u c t ; the plaintiff t h e p r o d u c t was d e f e c t i v e and i n j u r y occurred because 2) the unreason- a b l y d a n g e r o u s ; and 3 ) t h e d e f e c t e x i s t e d when i t l e f t t h e h a n d s of the Co. particular defendant. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. (1976) ed.) 382, 567 P.2d 1 7 0 Mont. 3 8 , 5 5 0 P.2d 936; Barich v. Ottenstror 3 9 5 , c i t i n g P r o s s e r on T o r t s ( 4 t h 103. as w e l l a s d i r e c t e v i d e n c e , may be Circumstantial evidence, used U.S.A. does Rockwell Manufacturing Duncan v . to show Brandenburger ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 2 Mont. Inc. not a defect. meet his burden 506, of Co. (1978), 176 Toyota 5 1 3 P.2d proof, e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t an a c c i d e n t occurred. Manufacturing v. Mont. Motor 268. however, Sales, A plaintiff by merely Brown v. N o r t h A m e r i c a n 98, 576 P.2d 711. B.- a- n d e n -- u r g e r , w e a d o p t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d of p r o o f r b-a d e f e c t i n a manufacturer's product: "The n a t u r e and q u a l i t y o f e v i d e n c e used i n p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y c a s e s t o show t h e d e f e c t a n d t h e n e x u s b e t w e e n t h e d e f e c t and t h e accident naturally varies. The most c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e is a n e x p e r t ' s p i n p o i n t i n g t h e d e f e c t a n d g i v i n g h i s o p i n i o n on t h e p r e c i s e c a u s e of If t h e a c c i d e n t af ter a thorough i n s p e c t i o n . an accident s u f f i c i e n t l y destroys the product, In to show o r the c r u c i a l p a r t s , then an e x p e r t ' s opinion on t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h a t a d e f e c t caused t h e a c c i d e n t would be h e l p f u l . I f no s u c h o p i n i o n i s p o s s i b l e , a s i n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e u s e r ' s t e s t i m o n y on what h a p p e n e d is a n o t h e r method o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e p r o d u c t was d e f e c tive. I f t h e u s e r is u n a b l e t o t e s t i f y , as w h e r e t h e a c c i d e n t k i l l e d him o r i n c a p a c i t a t e d h i m , no o t h e r w i t n e s s was p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e of the accident, and the product was d e s t r o y e d , t h e f a c t o f t h e a c c i d e n t and t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s are a l l t h a t remain f o r t h e p a r t y seeking recovery. A t t h i s point the p l a i n t i f f c a n a t t e m p t t o n e g a t e t h e u s e r as t h e c a u s e and f u r t h e r n e g a t e o t h e r c a u s e s n o t a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . These k i n d s of p r o o f i n t r o d u c e d a l o n e or c u m u l a t i v e l y a r e e v i d e n c e which h e l p e s t a b l i s h t h e p r e s e n c e of a d e f e c t as t h e c a u s e o f t h e damage." 513 P.2d at 275, quoting Stewart v. Budget Rent-A-Car ( 1 9 7 0 ) r 5 2 Haw. 7 1 , 470 P.2d 240, 243. T h i s f l e x i b l e s t a n d a r d o f c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c a n be m e t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e a c c i d e n t , s i m i l a r o c c u r r e n - by proof of ces u n d e r s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and e l i m i n a t i o n of causes. Brown, s u p r a ; B r a n d e n b u r g e r , - Under Rule 5 6 , summary judgment M.R.Civ.P., must alternative supra. the p a r t y opposing a motion f o r present facts of a substantial nature. S p e c u l a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t to r a i s e a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f material f a c t . B a r i c h , s u p r a ; Duncan, s u p r a . The a p p e l l a n t s h e r e h a v e f a i l e d t o meet t h e f l e x i b l e s t a n d a r d T h e r e was no a t t e m p t to s e t down i n B r a n d e n b u r g e r . evidence of similar occurrences under similar introduce circumstances. M o r e o v e r , and p e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d to eliminate alternative causes of the accident. While the p l a i n t i f f s ' own c o n d u c t may n o t h a v e b e e n a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r , t h a t i s n o t t h e o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e t h a t s h o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d . A l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e s i n c l u d e t i r e f a i l u r e , l o s s o f h y d r a u l i c powersteering, foreign improper objects maintenance, in the abuse steering by the prior mechanism, owner, among or others. Because t h e a l l e g a t i o n s r a i s e d by p l a i n t i f f s are s o speculative, t h e y c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d g e n u i n e i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t . A p p e l l a n t s n e x t claim t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t f o r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e of - - l o q u i t u r . res i p s a ment, on its face, seems incorrect. Generally, Such a n a r g u - res i p s a is applied to human conduct, not defective products. It is the d r i v e r o f a v e h i c l e or a p i l o t of a n a i r p l a n e who may be s u b j e c t S e e W h i t n e y v . N o r t h w e s t Greyhound es i p a t o t h e r--- ---s- p r e s u m p t i o n . . Lines, Inc. ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 2 5 Mont. ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 0 Mont. Sandaker 528, 438, N o r t h w e s t e r n Union T r u s t Co. 242 436 (1982), P.2d P.2d 257; Knowlton v. and Tompkins v. 98; Mont -- . . - -- - , 6 4 5 P.2d I n T o m p k i n s , w e q u o t e d t h e R e s t a t e m e n t ( S e c o n d ) of T o r t s , 5 328D, as properly stating the doctrine of res i p s a l o q u - - -itur: - " (1) I t may be i n f e r r e d t h a t harm s u f f e r e d b y t h e p l a i n t i f f is c a u s e d by n e g l i g e n c e of t h e d e f e n d a n t when " ( a ) t h e e v e n t is o f a k i n d w h i c h o r d i n a r i l y d o e s n o t o c c u r i n t h e a b s e n c e of n e g l i g e n c e ; " ( b ) other responsible causes, including the c o n d u c t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h i r d p e r s o n s , are s u f f i c i e n t l y e l i m i n a t e d by t h e evidence; and " ( c ) t h e i n d i c a t e d negligence is w i t h i n the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff. " ( 2 ) I t is t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e i n £ e r e n c e may r e a s o n a b l y be drawn by t h e j u r y , o r w h e t h e r it must n e c e s s a r i l y be drawn. " ( 3 ) I t is t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e j u r y to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e i n f e r e n c e is to be drawn i n a n y c a s e w h e r e d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s may r e a s o n a b l y be r e a c h e d 6 4 5 P.2d a t 406. ." While we have stated that exclusive control over the s i t u a t i o n is n o t a n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t of a -- - c a s e , w e h a v e res i p s a nevertheless acknowledged that e s t a b l i s h t h e p r o b a b l e c a u s e of exclusive control the accident. helps to Tompkins, s u p r a . Here, t h e c o n t r o l e x e r c i s e d by d e f e n d a n t s , G e n e r a l Motors and A t k i n Volkswagen, Bill is so remote t h a t any c a u s a l b e t w e e n t h e i r d u t y and t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' Moreover , as s t a t e d e a r l i e r , because eliminate other reasonable causes, speculative. gence may be connection i n j u r i e s has been broken. a p p e l l a n t s have failed to t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n s are p u r e l y I n s u c h a c a s e , no r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e - of n e g l i - // made and res - sa ip - l oquitur is X r j /2 not applicable. L- The summary j u d g m e n t is a f f i r m e d . i , / Justice ".c [ 'Lica*-wv?/ -, We concur: s;& s,GgdLfLyFeRQ, C h i e f Just4ce

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.