Opinion ID: 372611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Stability Issue.

Text: 9 In the first of its answers to special verdict questions, the jury found IHC to have been negligent in its design, testing, or manufacture of the 500C tractor with reference to its stability Or the use of a left foot decelerator. (Emphasis added.) However, the jury's third special verdict answer found that the design of the 500C was not defective insofar as it incorporated a left-foot decelerator. 4 IHC argues that because Wagner failed to prove any other instability in the crawler, these two special verdict answers are inconsistent, entitling IHC to a new trial. See, e. g., Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001 (5th Cir. 1977). We reject this contention. 10 We agree that, in light of the jury's finding of nondefectiveness, the installation of a left-foot decelerator on the 500C must be considered not to have been negligent. Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 307 Minn. 48, 240 N.W.2d 303 (1976). Under Minnesota law, however, a verdict of nondefectiveness does not preclude a finding of negligence based in part on other grounds E. g., failure to warn. Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co., 268 N.W.2d 892, 896 (Minn.1978). 5 In this case, the disjunctive and general form of the first special verdict question directly suggests an alternative basis for the jury's initial finding of negligence. Because the record in this case contains substantial evidence of negligence in the design, testing, or manufacture of the 500C tractor with reference to its stability apart from possible instability due to the left-foot decelerator, we find that the jury's first and third answers here are reconcilable. 11 The record reflects that IHC failed to conduct certain tests that may have been relevant to the crawler's stability. This evidence can be viewed apart from plaintiff Wagner's claim that a sudden release of the decelerator pedal made the 500C dynamically unstable. Moreover, one of plaintiff's expert witnesses testified that smaller crawlers like the 500C were less stable than large ones, and that consequently they could tip over more easily. A second expert witness echoed this testimony and stated that the diminished stability of a small tractor made rollover protection imperative. In light of this evidence, the jury's verdict regarding stability should be read in conjunction with its findings on the issues of rollover protection and the placement of the transmission breather cap and filler pipe. Rather than demonstrating any inconsistency, the verdict of negligence with reference to stability is entirely consistent with, and indeed reinforces, the jury findings addressing the adequacy of protection afforded crawler operators in the event of upset. 6 12