Title: BROTHERS v GENERAL MOTORS CORP
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-267
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 18, 1983

N O . 8 2 - 2 6 7 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 1 9 8 3 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 , V S . G E N E R A L MOTORS C O R P O R A T I O N , a n d B I L L A T K I N V O L K S W A G E N , I N C . , D e f e n d a n t s a n d R e s p o n d e n t s . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e S e c o n d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and 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 . C o u n s e l o f R e c o r d : F o r A p p e l l a n t s : W e l l c o m e & F r o s t , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a A l b e r t F r o s t a r g u e d , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t s : P o o r e L a w F i r m , B u t t e , M o n t a n a J a m e s P o o r e , I11 a r g u e d , B u t t e , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d : January 1 8 , 1 9 8 3 D e c i d e d : February 1 8 , 1 9 8 3 F i l e d : FEB 1 8 5983 - - - - - - - 4 C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f s brought t h i s a c t i o n i n strict p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y and n e g l i g e n c e f o r i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g from a c a r a c c i d e n t . The D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l District, S i l v e r Bow County, g r a n t e d summary judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t s and p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l . On J u n e 2 2 , 1977, p l a i n t i f f J e a n B r o t h e r s was d r i v i n g h e r 1976 P o n t i a c LeMans s t a t i o n wagon on I n t e r s t a t e 90 toward M i s s o u l a , Montana, a t a b o u t 50 miles p e r hour. The road was c l e a r and d r y . Her d a u g h t e r and grandson were p a s s e n g e r s i n t h e car. A s she was d r i v i n g around a g r a d u a l bend, J e a n B r o t h e r s f e l t a tremor i n t h e s t e e r i n g wheel, t h e n two s h o r t bumps, and was s u d d e n l y unable to t u r n t h e wheel. The car f a i l e d to go around t h e bend, moving from t h e r i g h t l a n e , i n t o t h e l e f t l a n e , and down i n t o t h e median 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 found no e v i d e n c e of d r i v e r error and d i d n o t i s s u e a t i c k e t t o Mrs. B r o t h e r s . 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 car's l e f t f r o n t t i r e was f l a t and t h a t i t s d e f l a t i o n may have p u l l e d t h e car o f f of t h e road. Mrs. B r o t h e r s and h e r husband had purchased t h e c a r i n November 1976, from d e f e n d a n t B i l l A t k i n Volkswagen. The car was u s e d , w i t h an odometer r e a d i n g of about 3,500 m i l e s . A t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e c a r had been d r i v e n about 7,600 miles. The c a r ' s w a r r a n t y h i s t o r y r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t mechanical problems or r e p a i r s . A mechanic a t a front-end r e p a i r shop i n Missoula looked a t t h e front-end of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s car, b u t could f i n d n o t h i n g wrong. The s t e e r i n g column was removed and examined by M r s . B r o t h e r s q son who is a mechanic. H e found nothing wrong. A pro- f e s s o r of mechanical 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 found n o t h i n g wrong. None of t h e o t h e r p o t e n t i a l e x p e r t s b r o u g h t forward by a p p e l l a n t s gave t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e car was d e f e c t i v e . The car was t a k e n t o a wrecking yard and h a s long s i n c e d i s a p p e a r e d . The g e n e r a l i s s u e of whether t h e summary judgment f o r defen- d a n t s was p r o p e r may be broken down i n t o two s u b s i d i a r y i s s u e s : 1. Whether a p p e l l a n t s m e t t h e i r burden to show t h a t a d e f e c t i n t h e car caused 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 t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . 2. Whether res - i p s a - - - - l o q u i t u r - -- - -- - - should be a p p l i e d to t h i s case. A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y of 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 car, is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to make a prima - f a c i e -- case i n strict 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 , t h i s evidence raises t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e v e h i c l e ' s 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 must show t h r e e t h i n g s : 1) t h e p l a i n t i f f was i n j u r e d by t h e p r o d u c t ; 2 ) t h e i n j u r y o c c u r r e d because t h e p r o d u c t was d e f e c t i v e and unreason- a b l y dangerous; and 3 ) t h e d e f e c t e x i s t e d when it l e f t t h e hands o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n d a n t . Duncan v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 382, 567 P.2d 936; Barich v. O t t e n s t r o r ( 1 9 7 6 ) 170 Mont. 38, 550 P.2d 395, c i t i n g P r o s s e r on T o r t s ( 4 t h e d . ) 103. C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , as w e l l a s d i r e c t e v i d e n c e , may be used t o show a d e f e c t . Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor S a l e s , U.S.A. I n c . ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 506, 513 P.2d 268. A p l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t meet h i s burden of p r o o f , however, by m e r e l y 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 o c c u r r e d . Brown v. North American Manufacturing Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 98, 576 P.2d 711. I n Brandenburger, . - - -- - - w e adopted t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d of proof to show a d e f e c t i n a m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s p r o d u c t : "The n a t u r e and q u a l i t y of 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 and t h e nexus between t h e d e f e c t and t h e acci- d e n t n a t u r a l l y v a r i e s . The most convincing e v i d e n c e is an 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 and 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 cause of 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 . I f a n a c c i d e n t s u f f i c i e n t l y d e s t r o y s t h e p r o d u c t , o r t h e c r u c i a l p a r t s , t h e n an e x p e r t ' s o p i n i o n 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 such o p i n i o n is p o s s i b l e , as 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 happened is a n o t h e r method of proving t h a t t h e p r o d u c t was defec- t i v e . I f t h e u s e r is unable to t e s t i f y , as where 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 him, 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 t h e a c c i d e n t , and t h e p r o d u c t was d e s t r o y e d , t h e f a c t of 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 s e e k i n g r e c o v e r y . A t t h i s p o i n t t h e p l a i n t i f f can 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 cause 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 not 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 are 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 cause of t h e damage." 513 P.2d a t 275, q u o t i n g S t e w a r t v. Budget Rent-A-Car ( 1 9 7 0 ) r 52 Haw. 71, 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 of c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e can be m e t by proof of 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 , similar occurren- ces under similar 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 a l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e s . Brown, s u p r a ; Brandenburger, s u p r a . - - Under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., t h e p a r t y opposing a motion f o r summary judgment must p r e s e n t f a c t s of a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e . S p e c u l a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s are 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 have 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 set down i n Brandenburger. There was no a t t e m p t to i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e of similar o c c u r r e n c e s under similar c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Moreover, and perhaps 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 e l i m i n a t e a l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e s of t h e a c c i d e n t . While t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' own conduct may n o t have been a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r , t h a t is n o t t h e o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e cause t h a t should 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 tire f a i l u r e , loss of h y d r a u l i c power- s t e e r i n g , improper maintenance, abuse by t h e prior owner, or f o r e i g n objects i n t h e s t e e r i n g mechanism, among o t h e r s . 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 specula- t i v e , t h e y cannot 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 material 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 of t h e d o c t r i n e of -- res i p s a l o q u i t u r . Such an argu- ment, on its f a c e , seems i n c o r r e c t . G e n e r a l l y , - - res i p s a is a p p l i e d t o human c o n d u c t , n o t d e f e c t i v e p r o d u c t s . It is t h e d r i v e r of a v e h i c l e or a p i l o t of an a i r p l a n e who may be s u b j e c t t o t h e -. res - - - - i p s a - - - presumption. See Whitney v. Northwest Greyhound L i n e s , I n c . ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 125 Mont. 528, 242 P.2d 257; Knowlton v. Sandaker ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 150 Mont. 438, 436 P.2d 98; and Tompkins v. Northwestern Union T r u s t Co. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , -- . Mont . - -- - , 645 P.2d I n Tompkins, w e quoted t h e Restatement (Second) of T o r t s , 5 328D, as p r o p e r l y s t a t i n g t h e d o c t r i n e of res i p s a l o q u i t u r : - - - - " (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 by t h e p l a i n t i f f is caused 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 of a kind which 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 absence of n e g l i g e n c e ; " ( b ) o t h e r r e s p o n s i b l e c a u s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e conduct of 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 n e g l i g e n c e is w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d u t y to t h e p l a i n t i f f . " ( 2 ) It is t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t to d e t e r m i n e whether t h e in£ 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 whether it must n e c e s s a r i l y be drawn. " ( 3 ) It is t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e j u r y to d e t e r - mine whether 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 where 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 reached ." 645 P.2d a t 406. While w e have s t a t e d t h a t e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e s i t u a t i o n is n o t a n e c e s s a r y element of a -- res - i p s a case, we have n e v e r t h e l e s s acknowledged t h a t e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l h e l p s to e s t a b l i s h t h e p r o b a b l e cause of t h e a c c i d e n t . 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 , General Motors and B i l l A t k i n Volkswagen, is so remote t h a t any c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between t h e i r d u t y and t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' i n j u r i e s has been broken. Moreover , as s t a t e d e a r l i e r , because a p p e l l a n t s have f a i l e d to e l i m i n a t e o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e s , t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n s are p u r e l y s p e c u l a t i v e . I n such a case, 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 - // gence may be made and - res -- i p s a - l o q u i t u r is n o t a p p l i c a b l e . L- The summary judgment is af f i r m e d . X r j /2 [ i , ".c 'Lica*-wv?/ -, / Justice We concur: s;& s , GgdLfLyFeRQ, C h i e f Just4ce