Case Title: BARICH v OTTENSTROR

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13103 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A ISABELLE BARICH , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, SHIRLEY OTTENSTROR, Administratrix of t h e E s t a t e of RICHARD OTTENSTROR a s owner of t h e CITY TRANSFER A N 1 1 STORAGE C O M P A N Y and individually, A E R O - M A Y F L O W E R TRANSIT C O M P A N Y , and DONNER T A T U M C O M P A N Y , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding, Counsel of Record: For Appellant : McKeon and Skakles, Anaconda, Montana Michael McKeon argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondents : Knight, Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade J. nahood argued, Anaconda, Montana Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana Dolphy 0. Pohlman Jr. argued, Butte, Montana Filed : Submitted: March 2, 1976 Dee ided : fdfi."/ 1 4 1976 r . !us t i c e J C I ~ I L ~ ~ O L I W ~ Y ' l a r ~ L ~ U I ~ -1el~vered tne J p i ~ i i o n ~i layflower Transit Company, a corporation, organized under t h e laws J r the s t a t e of Indiana; and the Donner Tatum Company, a corpora- !:ion, organized under the laws of t h e s t a t e of California. P l a i n t i f f Barich seeks both general and s p e c i a l damages froin defendants a s compensation f o r i n j u r i e s sustained i n connection wich a l a r g e cardboard wardrobe box which was allegedly constructed, (distributed, sold and handled i n a negligent manner by defendants. LIA addition t o the theory of negligence, the amended complaint > p e c i f i e s t h e concepts of warranty and s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y a s a l t e r - aacive grounds f o r l i a b i l i t y . The record c o n s i s t s of the pleadings, p l a i n t i f f ' s l e p a s i t i o n , and t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and answers of a l l p a r t i e s . O n t h i s b a s i s defendants requested t h e d i s t r i c t court t o e n t e r t a i n : ~ ~ o t i o n s f o r summary judgment pursuant t o Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. The motions were granted and p l a i n t i f f appeals. It appears t h a t i n June 1968, appellant Barich purchased f o r five d o l l a r s a new wardrobe carton from City Transfer and .>torage, an agent f o r Aero-Mayflower Transit Company. The carton is constructed of cardboard sheets held together with glue, and measures 24" x 22:' x 51". It i s d i s t r i b u t e d but not manufactured by the Donner Tatum Company i n the ordinary course of i t s business. The carton was purchased by appellant f o r use i n a proposed move from Anaconda t o Wexford, Pennsylvania. Appellant f i l l e d the carton with s e v e r a l a r t i c l e s of clothing, and i t was ~ I A U V ~ ~ ' ) y e ~ ~ i p 1 u y e e s .Ji .+el o--:?ayilo~er !rdr~.sitI Jorilpd~iy, s e v e ~ d l . weeks a f t e r i t s purchdse. Upon i t s a r r i v a l i n Pennsylva~lia, t h e : d ~ t o n was unloaded and placed on pieces of lumber i n an un- heated garage with concrete walls and f l o o r . The carton remained i r ~ t h a t garage f o r the next two years subjected t o t h e v i c i s s i t u d e ~i temperature and humidity t y p i c a l t o Pennsylvania. In June '970, appellant and her husband returned t o the Anaconda area. They rented a truck and performed a l l necessary packing and moving themselves. The now two year old carton was placed i n a rented truck S y Yr. Barich and it remained there u n t i l i t s a r r i v a l i n Anaconda. 1 1 1 a s s i s t i n g her husband with the unloading of t h e truck, appellant was asked t o move t h e carton away from t h e sidewall of t h e vehicle. lo accomplish t h i s Mrs. Barich placed her hand i n a s i d e space constructed i n the carton a s a type of handle, and pulled on it. The carton ripped, and appellant f e l l backward i n t o a wheel well, breaking her w r i s t . Several p i c t u r e s of t h e carton were attached t o a p p e l l a n t ' s deposition f o r the purpose of demonstrating t h e alleged defect which apparently caused the accident. These p i c t u r e s a l s o serve t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e basic condition of t h e carton a t t h e time of t h e accident. After over two years of continued use f o r both storage and moving, the carton, although c l e a r l y s t i l l usable, showed the obvious signs of normal wear and t e a r . A puncture hole e x i s t s on the same s i d e used by appellant when t h e accident occurred, and a huge t e a r i n the cardboard appears near the base of the carton. The box i s necessarily reinforced by masking tape i n several c r i t i c a l a r e a s . Appellant was unable t o recount any s p e c i f i c f a c t s which might tend t o explain the d e t e r i o r a t i o n of t h e c a r t o n ' s condition. This Court, on numerous occasions, has had t h e opportunity t o e x p l i c a t e t h e fundamentals of summary judgment under Rule 56, M.R. i . . The i n i ~ i a l burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e absence of any genuine i s s u e of material f a c t i s imposed upon t h e moving party. 14ustang Severage Company, I n c . , v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company, 162 Mont. 243, 246, 1 1 . d , SUE here ;:he recdrd d i s c l o s e s 110 gerluine issue of material f a c t , rhe party opposing t h e motion i s required t o produce evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e a genuine i s s u e of f a c t before t h e t r i a l court: "Thus t h e determinitive question here is whether respondent has r a i s e d f a c t u a l i s s u e s t h a t a r e material and of a s u b s t a n t i a l nature." S t a t e ex r e l . City Motor Company v. D i s t . Court, 32 -;t.Rep. 34,36, 166 Mont. 52, 530 P.2d 486. in l i g h t of Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., t h e party opposing a motion Eor ;unmary judgment on a record which reveals no i s s u e of material  #b A The second i s t h a t t h e i n j u r y occurred because t h e 4, , , product was defective, unreasonably unsafe. 9~ " -L The t h i r d i s t h a t t h e defect existed when t h e product l e f t che hands of t h e p a r t i c u l a r defendant. I I i i h b i i i t y Jases regardless of the theory of l i a b i l i t y advanced, w e aeed not discuss t h e various t h e o r i e s upon which appellant seeks t o hold respondents l i a b l e . 63 Av.Jur 2d, Products L i a b i l i t y , ,$ 9 , p.1-9; Hursh, American Law of Products L i a b i l i t y 2d, 4 1 : 7 , 9 . 19. It i s a w e l l established r u l e i n products l i a b i l i t y cases :;hdt sl lianufacturer o r s e l l e r i s not l i a b l e f o r product caused i n j u r i e s i n the absence of proof t h a t the instrumentality i n question was defective o r dangerous a t t h e time t h e defendant was i-11 possession o r c o n t r o l of i t , o r when such product l e f t defendant's possession and control. Richardson v. Farmers Union O i l Co., 131 Mont. 535, 312 P.2d 134; American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Sorp. v. Fix, 200 F.2d 529; Northern v. General Motors Corp., 2 iltah 2d 9, 268 P.2d 981. In Restatement of Torts 2d 5 402A, t h i s zoncept t o s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y s i t u a t i o n s appears i n Comment g, p. h he burden of proof t h a t t h e product was i n a defective condition a t the time t h a t it l e f t t h e hands of the p a r t i c u l a r s e l l e r i s upon the injured p l a i n t i f f ; and unless evidence can be produced which g i l l support t h e conclusion chat i t was then defective, :he burden i s not sustained. I I the law does nor- presume t h a t a product was defective sc t:he t i n w it was under t h e c o n t r o l of a manufacturer o r d i s - tribuLor, from a mere showing t h a t a product may have been de- f e c t i v e a t t h e time of t h e accident. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Inde- pendent Metal Products Co., 203 F.2d 838. While a s p e c i f i c defect need not be shown where the evidence tends t o negate i n j u r y pro- Jucing causes which do not r e l a t e t o a d e f e c t , t h i s r u l e cannot se applied unless the evidence a l s o negates the misuse o r m i s - !landling of t h e product by t h e p l a i n t i f f . Franks v. National Dairy :~roducts Corp., 414 F.2d 682. Here, respondents met t h e i r i n i t i a l burden of proof under Xule 56, when they proved the product had been used f o r a con- siderable length of time following i t s manufacture and s a l e . Under such circumstances, many courts have recognized t h e l o g i c a l appeal of t h e inference t h e defective condition could not have e x i s t e d a t t h e time t h e product was sold. Solomon v. White Motor Co., 153 F.Supp. 917; Auld v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 261 App.Div. 918, 25 N.Y.S.2d 491, a f f ' d 41 N.E.2d 927; Courtois v. General ?fotors Corp., 37 N . J . 525, 182 A.2d 545; U.S. Rubber Co. v. Bauer, 319 F.2d 463; Kapp v. Sullivan Chevrolet Co., 234 Ark. 395, 353 S.W.2d 5. A manufacturer o r s e l l e r i s not required, under t h e law, t o produce o r s e l l a product t h a t w i l l never wear out. Jakubowski v , Minnesota Mining & 14anufacturing, 42 N . J . 177, 199 A.2d 826. Under these f a c t s , t h e d i s t r i c t court was c o r r e c t i n r u l i n g t h a t no genuine i s s u e of material f a c t e x i s t e d and t h a t respondents were e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a matter of law. It was incumbent upon appellant t o come forward with proof overcoming t h e inferences derived from the undisputed f a c t s surrounding the i s s u e of long, continued use t o again r a i s e the p o s s i b i l i t y shown i n t h e pleadings t h a t a genuine and material f a c t i s s u e might have existed. F a i l i n g such a showing, t h e judgment i s affirmed. - -- ~ o n . B;W. Thomas, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. - 6 -