Title: McGUIRE v AMERICAN HONDA CO
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13490
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 14, 1977

No. 13490 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1977 D O U G L A S R. McGUIRE, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, V S . AMERICAN HONDA C O M P A N Y , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Xccord: For Appellant: Richard W. Anderson argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Berger, Anderson, S i n c l a i r & Murphy, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Jerome Anderson argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, Peete & Brown, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted : Decided: JbL - 3 4,: F i l e d : M r . Chief J u s t i c e Paul G. Hatfield d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant American Honda Company appeals from a judgment entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , eighteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County. The c o u r t t r i e d t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y without a jury and pursuant t o i t s findings of f a c t and conclusions of law entered judgment i n favor of p l a i n t i f f Douglas R. McGuire. Following d e n i a l of Honda's combined motion t o amend f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law and judgment and motion f o r a new t r i a l , Honda appealed. The a c t i o n was brought by p l a i n t i f f t o recover damages sustained i n a motorcycle accident involving a motorcycle owned by p l a i n t i f f and manufactured by Honda. P l a i n t i f f purchased a used 1966 Honda T r a i l 90 motorcycle i n April, 1970. Shortly t h e r e a f t e r he replaced t h e f r o n t t i r e with one purchased by h i s present wife (then fiancee) a t a Bozeman motorcycle d e a l e r ' s shop. O n J u l y 5, 1970, while operating t h e motorcycle i n an a r e a near Bozeman, p l a i n t i f f was thrown over t h e handlebars when t h e f r o n t wheel locked a s he was descending a h i l l . P l a i n t i f f received a broken p e l v i s ; h i s wife, who was r i d i n g on t h e back of t h e motorcycle, was n o t injured. P l a i n t i f f o r i g i n a l l y brought a negligence a c t i o n a g a i n s t Howard Nelson, d/b/a Harmony house, t h e l o c a l Honda d e a l e r , a l l e g - ing t h e d e a l e r n e g l i g e n t l y sold p l a i n t i f f ' s wife a t i r e t h a t was t h e wrong s i z e f o r t h e f r o n t wheel of t h e motorcycle. Honda s p e c i f i e d a 2.50 x 17 t i r e s i z e f o r t h e f r o n t wheel of its T r a i l 90 model, and a 2.75 x 17 t i r e s i z e f o r t h e rear; t h e l a r g e r s i z e was sold t o p l a i n t i f f ' s wife. P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s he suffered were caused by t h e sudden s e i z u r e of t h e f r o n t wheel when t h e t i r e was forced up a g a i n s t t h e f r o n t fender. P l a i n t i f f was awarded $45,000 by t h e jury which found f o r him i n t h a t action. Nelson appealed and t h i s c o u r t i n McGuire v. Nelson, 162 Mont. 37, 508 P.2d 558, held t h a t testimony of p l a i n t i f f ' s expert witness had been improperly received s i n c e no foundation had been given f o r an i n c o u r t demonstration i n which t h e motorcycle's f r o n t suspension w a s compressed through t h e use of f u r n i t u r e clamps. It w a s held t h a t p l a i n t i f f had f a i l e d t o show a s u b s t a n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y of conditions between t h e f o r c e employed i n t h e demonstration and t h e force applied a t t h e t i m e of t h e accident. The cause w a s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f then f i l e d an amended complaint adding Amer- ican Honda Company as a defendant, a l l e g i n g negligent design and manufacture of a d e f e c t i v e product i n t h a t t h e narrowness of t h e f r o n t fork allowed t h e f r o n t wheel t o lock when f i t t e d with an oversize t i r e , with no warning given f o r such a dangerous condition. P l a i n t i f f alleged t h a t Honda should be held s t r i c t l y l i a b l e i n t o r t . Following t h e presentation of p l a i n t i f f ' s case before a jury, Honda's motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t was granted and judgment i n favor of Honda entered. P l a i n t i f f and defendant Nelson then s e t t l e d , upon a covenant not t o sue, f o r t h e amount of $3,750, P l a i n t i f f appealed. I n McGuire v. Nelson, 167 Mont. 188, 536 P.2d 768, t h i s Court held t h a t testimony of p l a i n t i f f ' s expert witness, Roy Prussing, a s t o h i s opinion concerning t h e s a f e t y and/or d e f e c t s of t h e design of t h e f r o n t suspension and t h e cause of t h e accident had been improperly excluded. This Court held t h a t expert testimony is proper t o explain t h e cause of an accident when t h e subject i s complex and t h e expert quali- f i e d , and t h a t witness Prussing was duly q u a l i f i e d . The cause was returned t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a t h i r d t r i a l . The p a r t i e s then entered upon a s t i p u l a t i o n pursuant t o which t h e i s s u e s of l i a b i l i t y and damages would be s p l i t and t h e l i a b i l i t y i s s u e t r i e d before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t without a jury. It was s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e testimony and evidence sub- mitted by p l a i n t i f f would c o n s i s t of testimony and e x h i b i t s on t h e l i a b i l i t y i s s u e received during t h e second t r i a l of t h e case, and supplemental testimony of witness Prussing presented by h i s May 29, 1974 desposition. It was agreed t h a t s u b j e c t r t o Honda's r i g h t t o appeal, a jury t r i a l would be held t o d e t e r - mine t h e i s s u e of damages i n t h e event t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y i n p l a i n t i f f ' s favor. P l a i n t i f f submitted t o t h e c o u r t t h e record of t h e pre- vious t r i a l a s it concerned h i s proof of Honda's l i a b i l i t y , and t h e deposition of witness Prussing. Honda presented four expert witnesses a t t h i s t r i a l and had twenty e x h i b i t s entered i n t o evidence. P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d i n r e b u t t a l . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t made and entered i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law on June 23, 1976. The c o u r t found t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s Honda 90 motorcycle would not s a f e l y accomodate on i t s f r o n t wheel t h e t i r e s p e c i f i e d f o r t h e r e a r wheel and t h a t Honda had displayed no warnings a g a i n s t t h e interchange of tires. It a l s o found t h a t t h e f r o n t suspension was so designed t h a t when it "bottomed" t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t clearance t o prevent c o n t a c t between t h e fender and f r o n t t i r e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s were proximately caused by Honda's f a i l u r e t o warn a g a i n s t interchange of t h e f r o n t and r e a r tires, by negligent design of t h e f r o n t suspension system, and by Honda's marketing a product deceptively and unreasonably dangerous t o t h e user. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded a s a matter of law t h a t t h e motorcycle was negligently and deceptively designed i n t h a t t h e tolerances between t h e f r o n t wheel and fender w e r e dangerously c l o s e ; t h a t t h e f r o n t and r e a r tires could not be s a f e l y interchanged although deceptively similar; and that there was no warning to the user of the dangers involved in the foreseeable practice of tire substitution. The court concluded that the negligent design, failure to warn and resulting defects were a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries; that plaintiff neither assumed the risk of injury in his operation of the motorcycle nor was guilty of contributory negligence; and that plaintiff had proven by a preponderance of the evidence his allegations concerning the strict liability in tort of American Honda Company. Pursuant to its findings of fact and conclusions of law the district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability and ordered the trial of the damage issue. Honda specifies five issues for review: Whether the evidence supports the district court's deter- minations (1) that the interchange of the front and rear tire caused the front wheel to lock, being thereby deceptively danger- ous to the user; (2) that Honda's failure to warn against such interchange caused plaintiff's injuries; (3) that the close toler- ance between the front fender and tire constituted negligent design and caused plaintiff's injuries; (4) that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence; (5) that plaintiff had not assumed the risk of his actions. Honda contends that the evidence shows no danger of a front wheel seizure when the front and rear tires are interchanged. From this, Honda argues, it follows that the interchange did not cause plaintiff's injuries, that there was no need to warn against such interchange, and that the Honda 90 motorcycle was not neg- ligently designed. Honda invites this Court to disregard the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness concerning the design of the front suspension and t h e cause of p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s and t o accept a s more c r e d i b l e t h e evidence o f f e r e d by Honda i n t h e nonjury t r i a l . This Court has s a i d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t may not d i s r e g a r d uncontradicted c r e d i b l e evidence. F a i t h Lutheran Retirement Home v. V e i s , 156 Mont. 38, 46, 473 P.2d 503. The evidence presented by Honda w a s n o t , however, un- contradicted. The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o received t h e opinion of p l a i n t i f f ' s expert witness, evidence it was d i r e c t e d t o r e c e i v e by t h i s Court i n i t s d e c i s i o n on t h e second appeal of t h e cause, McGuire v. Nelson, 167 Mont. 188, 197, 536 P.2d 768. The former appeal e s t a b l i s h e d t h e law of t h e case. Solberg v. Sunburst O i l & Gas Co., 76 Mont. 254, 246 P. 168; Anderson v. Border, 87 Mont. 4 , 285 P. 174. I n ~ c G u i r e it s t a t e s : "All t h a t testimony, combined with Prussing's testimony as t o whether o r not he considered t h e design t o be dangerous, had it been allowed i n t o testimony, would have been s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o allow t h e c a s e t o go t o t h e jury * * *." 167 Mont. 197. The exact same evidence was s t i p u l a t e d i n t h i s case. Therefore a prima f a c i e c a s e f o r p l a i n t i f f w a s made o u t a s a matter of law. Conceding t h a t t h i s Court i n t h e second appeal found witness P r u s s i n g ' s testimony t o have m e t t h e threshold require- ments f o r consideration by t h e trier of f a c t , Honda contends t h a t such evidence f a i l s t o prove a causal connection between t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t i n t h e design of t h e f r o n t suspension and t h e i n j u r i e s suffered by p l a i n t i f f . Honda relies on Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, 162 Mont. 506, 515, 518, 513 P.2d 268, where t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The adoption of t h e d o c t r i n e of strict l i a - b i l i t y does not r e l i e v e t h e p l a i n t i f f from t h e burden of proving h i s case. V i t a l t o t h a t proof i s t h e n e c e s s i t y of proving t h e e x i s t e n c e of a d e f e c t i n t h e product and t h a t such d e f e c t caused t h e i n j u r y complained o f . " The standard of proof adopted i n Brandenburger i s set f o r t h i n p a r t a s follows: "The most convincing evidence is an e x p e r t ' s pinpointing t h e d e f e c t and giving h i s opinion on t h e p r e c i s e cause of t h e accident a f t e r a thorough inspection." 162 Mont. 518. The testimony of p l a i n t i f f ' s e x p e r t witness included a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e elements of t h e design of t h e motorcycle's f r o n t suspension which he judged t o be d e f e c t i v e , and h i s opinion t h a t t h i s d e f e c t i v e design caused p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s . Witness Prussing's testimony was based upon tests he performed and ob- s e r v a t i o n s he made i n t h e course of examining t h e f r o n t suspen- s i o n of t h e motorcycle. P l a i n t i f f , h i s wife, and h i s cousin George Barclay a l s o t e s t i f i e d i n support of p l a i n t i f f ' s theory of causation. Some- time a f t e r t h e accident, they noticed c o n t a c t between t h e f r o n t tire and fender of p l a i n t i f f ' s Honda 90. While denying t h a t t h i s c o n t a c t could slow t h e f r o n t wheel t o a s t o p , Honda's expert witnesses conceded t h a t such c o n t a c t occurred during t h e i r tests of a s i m i l a r motorcycle on which an o v e r s i z e f r o n t t i r e w a s mounted. Judge W. W. Lessley, eighteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , presided over t h e t r i a l of t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n , McGuire v. Nelson, 162 Mont. 37, 508 P.2d 558. H e a l s o presided over t h e jury t r i a l f o r which Honda w a s added a s a defendant, McGuire v. Nelson, 167 Mont. 188, 536 P.2d 768, and t h e nonjury t r i a l from which t h e p r e s e n t appeal i s taken. The t r i a l c o u r t considered a l l of t h e evidence before finding i n p l a i n t i f f ' s favor. I n a l l proceedings, 57 e x h i b i t s were received, and t h e record t o t a l s 612 pages. I n Strong v. Williams, 154 Mont. 65, 68, 460 P.2d 90, t h i s Court s t a t e d : " I t i s well s e t t l e d i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t wherever t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence t h i s Court may only review t h e testimony f o r t h e pur- pose of determining whether t h e r e i s any sub- s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e v e r d i c t * * *. Where t h e evidence i s c o n f l i c t i n g , but s u b s t a n t i a l evidence appears i n t h e record t o support t h e judgment, t h e judgment w i l l n o t be disturbed on appeal, and t h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e when t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , as here, has passed upon t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence on motion f o r a new t r i a l and upheld i t s s u f f i c i e n c y . Batchoff v. Craney, 119 Mont. 157, 172 P.2d 308; Wallace v. Wallace, 85 Mont. 492, 279 P. 374 * * *." To t h e same e f f e c t , see Kirby v. Kelly, 161 Mont. 66, 504 P.2d 683; Davis v. Davis, 159 Mont. 355, 497 P.2d 315. W e f i n d t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence submitted t o t h e trier of f a c t f o r it t o f i n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f was not g u i l t y of contributory negligence nor assumed t h e r i s k of h i s a c t i o n s and t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r i e s w e r e proximately caused by t h e defec- t i v e design of h i s Honda 90 motorcycle. Judgment is affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e -----