Opinion ID: 468767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: evidence of the indistinguishibility of similar products

Text: 72 As noted previously, appellant contends that the accident occurred, at least in part, because the Firestone rim base had been mismatched with a Goodyear side ring. A proper match would have been a Firestone rim base and a Firestone side ring, or a Goodyear rim base and a Goodyear side ring. The fact of a mismatch points to neither component as being the wrong or defective one. If they are unreasonably or dangerously liable to be mismatched, then they are both to that extent defective. Whether a product is defective in this sense thus depends on what other products look like, and how likely they are to be mismatched with it. 73 If there were only four wheel components in the world--the Firestone rim base and side ring, and the Goodyear rim base and side ring--then the mismatch problem would not be great no matter what they looked like. The true proportions of a mismatch defect can be assessed only in relation to the whole range of potentially mismatching components, not merely those that were actually mismatched in any particular case. The very nature of this defect requires that the jury be allowed to see and compare other potentially mismatching components. 13 74 The trial court below seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the Firestone rim base, the Firestone side ring, the Goodyear rim base, and the Goodyear side ring were the only wheel components relevant to a mismatch theory. In sustaining defendants' objections to an exhibit, the court noted: 75 The question we are here to decide is the question of particular components that are before the jury, not tire rims or multi-piece tire rims in general.... So I want to emphasize that aspect of the case, that I consider we are here to try defects in these particular products, not multi-piece rims in general.... 76 13 Rec. at 425-26. Later, in sustaining a similar objection the court instructed the jury as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen, you won't consider testimony about any other components other than involved in this case for any purpose. Id. at 459. 77 A good example of appellant's difficulties in presenting her mismatch argument is to be found in the testimony concerning the Goodyear side ring. Plaintiff, of course, was attempting to demonstrate that the component could be confused with other side rings, so that it--rather than the proper, matching Firestone side ring--could be mismatched with the Firestone rim base. This theory necessarily involves testimony on those other side rings. Nevertheless, objections to such testimony were repeatedly sustained: BY MR. RISJORD: 78 Q. With respect to the Goodyear ring, what is the stamping that you found on it, Dr. Gibson? 79
80 Q. Do you as an engineer with the experience and having looked at some eighty-seven of these know what that R means? At least do you as an engineer? 81 A. Yes, sir. 82 Q. What does it mean? 83 A. That means ring. 84 Q. Is there a ring that is also called simply an R? 85 A. Yes, there is. 86 Q. Is this it? 87 A. No sir, it is not. 88 Q. Who made that, if you know? 89 MR. BREES: Excuse me, your honor. We're again getting into other rings and other rims, and we would object on that basis. 90 THE COURT: What is the question again? 91 MR. RISJORD: The question is since this ring has the stamping of R on it, I'm wondering whether there are rings other than this configuration which are R rings. 92 THE COURT: Sustain the objection. 93 .... 94 Q. What does the F stand for? 95 A. I don't know. 96 Q. On the ring? 97 A. I don't know. 98 Q. You don't know? 99 A. No, sir. 100 Q. Is there a rim tire which bears the symbol F-- 101 MR. BREES: Excuse me. Same objection, your Honor. Talking now about another rim, another ring. 102 THE COURT: Sustained. 103 Id. at 459-60, 462. 104 As an analogy to this restriction on evidence of mismatch, consider the case of a car whose front right wheel falls off in circumstances suggesting that all four wheels were defectively attached. Restricting evidence to the one wheel that actually happened to fall off does not allow the true proportions of the car's defects to be revealed. A car with four defective wheels is more defective than a car with only one defective wheel. In the former case, the fact that it is the front right wheel that happens to fall off is of no particular significance. This does not, however, mean that the requirement of causation can be dispensed with. Rather, an accident caused by the defect would be attributed to failure of the wheel system. Cf. Bell Helicopter, 594 S.W.2d at 529 (characterizing defective product as the 102 series system). 105 Similarly, in the case at bar, if the Firestone rim base and the Goodyear side ring indeed have a mismatch defect, that defect cannot consist merely in the fact that these two particular components could be mismatched with each other. Rather, these components are defective because they can be confused with other, similar components. This confusion, appellant argues, was one cause of Jackson's accident. The jury should have been allowed to assess the true proportions of whatever mismatch defect these components had, and that can be done only by seeing and comparing other potentially mismatching components to determine which of them, if any, are unreasonably and dangerously indistinguishable from the particular components at issue here. In short, the jury should have known whatever the available evidence would show about the similarity of all potentially mismatching multi-piece wheel components. 106 Appellant's unsuccessfully proffered exhibits suggest that she could have made a credible showing on her mismatch theory, had she been allowed to pursue it fully. For example, appellant even offered evidence tending to show that Firestone's own distributors were having mismatch problems. The minutes of an August 18, 1977, meeting of Firestone distributors contains the following item: 107 Distributors are becoming concerned because of the problems involved with mismatching side or lock rings with rims or wheels sold, as the component parts are received in loose loads, even though they are ordered as complete assemblies. The Council Members feel that we should ship all orders for complete assembly with their correct component parts pre-assembled at the factory. We will take this suggestion under advisement and report our action to be taken. 108 Plaintiff's Exhibit 147, at 3. This exhibit was excluded; see 15 Rec. at 923. 109 Confusion is further compounded by the fact that in some cases the manufacturers apparently were condoning some forms of mismatch of their components, while at the same time prohibiting others in the strongest terms. For example, a February 15, 1966, Firestone memo entitled Interchanging Truck Rim Components states: 110 You have been familiar with the fact that Goodyear Metal Products Division of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company have been taking a position through their distributors and direct to truck manufacturers that they would not approve the interchangeability of the Goodyear LBD and Firestone DT rim parts. They have now reversed their position on this matter, and we are attaching a copy of their special bulletin to all Goodyear rim distributors, No. 6642, which was recently sent to distributors. It does not show a date of issue. 111 Plaintiff's Exhibit 26. 14 This exhibit was also excluded; see 15 Rec. at 923.