Opinion ID: 1298680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: present evidence of defect

Text: In accord with the general authorities, I follow the foregoing syllogism that for a product sold for an intended function or performance purpose, defect is failure in that performance. In support of their motions for summary judgment, Michelin submitted and Cobre Tire relied on the affidavit of expert witness Charles Sons, a tire expert who had worked for Caterpillar Tractor Company for over 25 years. In his affidavit, Mr. Sons stated: After having examined the tires involved in this accident, and having witnessed the various tests performed at the scene of the accident and also having examined the Largent photographs depicting the scene of the accident, I am of the opinion that there was no defect in either design or manufacture of the Michelin tires installed upon unit 699 upon which Mr. McLaughlin was injured. In addition, Michelin submitted excerpts from the deposition of James Lipari, a Bridger employee, indicating appellant's scraper had hit a rock which precipitated the bouncing resulting in the accident. Also, Michelin submitted an excerpt from the deposition of appellant's expert, Dale Bussman, in which Bussman indicated that he could not identify a specific design or manufacturing defect. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, appellant submitted depositions of employees and supervisory personnel of Bridger and depositions of representatives of Michelin and Cobre Tire, all stating that immediately upon replacing the prior bias tires with the Michelin radial tires on scraper 699, problems with performance of the tires were experienced and reported. The evidence indicated that no similar complaints were reported or problems observed as to the Bridgestone radial tires contemporaneously installed on scraper 696. Appellant, in his deposition, testified that he immediately noticed a difference in the operation of the scraper upon installation of the Michelin tires on March 10, 1983 and that he reported the problem to his supervisor at the first opportunity. Appellant stated that the new tires caused the machine to vibrate, bounce, and [t]he whole thing would shake. The depositions of other Bridger employees and supervisors were of similar effect. They indicated that all the operators who drove scraper 699 complained about the bounce and vibration after installation of the Michelin tires. James Lipari testified that six operators had complained of enhanced bouncing for weeks prior to the accident. Cobre Tire's on-site tire man, Larry Farwell, testified that he received complaints about the tires' performance within a few days of their installation and he relayed the information to his supervisor, Kenneth Moe, and to Gary Workman of Michelin in Salt Lake City. Workman recommended varying the tire air pressure, which was done with no noticeable curative effect. Farwell testified that he rode in the scraper with appellant on March 30 and found the ride to be bumpy, with the vibration problem continuing. Farwell reported this information to Workman who suggested removing the tires from scraper 699 and trying them on another machine. On April 4, 1983, the day before the accident, Moe, Cobre Tire's division manager, instructed Farwell to remove the Michelin tires from the scraper as soon as some replacement tires were received. Moe, in his deposition, stated that he ordered the tires removed for the reason of customer satisfaction. The atmosphere of operational problems is similar to the circumstance of combined problems found in Greco, 283 F. Supp. 978. On the date of the accident, while appellant was doing reclamation work with scraper 699 to remove overburden and fill depressions, operator Keith Nichols, from observations of appellant's scraper just prior to the accident, stated that every time appellant hit a rock or a bump the tires deflected and that the tires were flattening out to the extent that the distance from the bottom of the tire to the rim was only about six inches, and then they would spring back so that the distance from the rim to the bottom of the tire was two and one half feet. In describing the accident, Lipari said he came down past me making his cut.    Keith [Nichols] came in behind him, and the next thing I knew I could see the scraper bouncing real hard. I saw it bounce three or four times. Appellant, in his deposition, said that [t]he scraper shook sideways and bounced up and down, and that's really all I can describe of it.    I feel that on either running over a rock or in a hole, it started bouncing sideways. Lipari also testified that after the accident, he drove scraper 699 back to the shop and it bounced excessively. After the accident, a test was conducted on the tires by removing them from scraper 699 and placing them on identical scraper 696. Operator Justin Webster, who then drove scraper 696 during that test with the Michelin tires on it, testified that with the Michelin tires on it, they would  it wouldn't smooth out near as fast, and it gave me a feeling of losing a bit of control on it, especially after a sharp bump or a hole, it would feel like I was losing it a little bit. Larry Largent, a supervisor for Bridger, also testified about the test, stating that scraper 696 bounced and vibrated more when the Michelin tires were put on it than it had before. In addition to this testimony, appellant submitted the deposition of mechanical engineer, Dale Bussman, as an expert witness. Mr. Bussman testified that the tires were defective in that placement of these tires on scraper 699 was the wrong application for the tires. Bussman also seemed to draw a distinction between the tire being defectively designed as opposed to unsuitable for their intended use, a discrepancy noted by Michelin and Cobre Tire. Again, I perceive this as a distinction without a difference. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, I note the following observations made by Mr. Bussman in his deposition: It's just that in this particular case we had a defective tire that was on this machine and it gave excessive vibration which resulted in a loss of control.          Now, relative to the question of whether it was a defective manufacture, I mean, maybe  and I don't know this, and it really doesn't matter, because we know the tire gave the excessive vibration in this particular case  perhaps it was defectively manufactured, okay, I don't know that. And I really don't care. All I know is that the tire gave excessive vibration which resulted in the loss of control. In presentation where the evidence submitted regarding the alleged defectiveness of the Michelin tires was conflicting, appellant's materials submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment were surely sufficient to structure a genuine issue of material fact as to defectiveness.