Opinion ID: 504451
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff's Evidence of Causation

Text: 19 Our review of the evidence presented at trial convinces us the district court erred in granting defendants' renewed directed verdict motion on plaintiff's strict liability claim. Plaintiff unequivocally testified she applied the parking brake and then assured herself it was on by verifying the car was not rolling and by noting the brake on dashboard light was illuminated. Plaintiff's mother testified she released the brake an hour or two after the accident while trying to locate the release lever for the ignition key. 20 Defendant General Motors admitted the brake on light in the subject vehicle would illuminate even when the parking brake was not effectively engaged. No warning was given to consumers that the brake on light bore no relationship to effective parking brake application, yet even some of defendant Johnson's mechanics believed there was such a relationship. In fact, the brake on light in plaintiff's car illuminated even before the first click of brake pedal travel. 21 Plaintiff's expert witness testified the brakes were not adjusted in conformance with General Motors shop manual standards when tested by him in the location where the vehicle came to rest and before it was moved after the accident, such that the brake pedal had to travel farther in order to achieve effective engagement. All experts agreed the vehicle could roll backward at 3 to 4 clicks of parking brake application in the driveway where the accident occurred, and it was undisputed the vehicle would roll backward more easily than forward, although no warnings were given of this fact. 22 Defendants urge the above evidence of defects is insufficient because in order for these defects to have caused the accident, the brake pedal must have been depressed only part of the way (3 or 4 of 19 or 20 clicks). In other words, if depressed more than 5 clicks, the brake would have held, despite the defects. Defendants further cite what they view as inconsistent testimony by plaintiff that she depressed the brake pedal as hard as she could. 23 Defendants' argument ignores the evidence presented by plaintiff concerning the brake pedal design, however, and the effect that pushing by persons of various weights at various angles may have on brake effectiveness. Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must, a jury could reasonably find plaintiff depressed the pedal as hard as she could, the brake on light was illuminated, and the car nonetheless rolled backward over her. See Osborn v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 290 N.W.2d 893, 901-02 (Iowa 1980); Oak Leaf Country Club, Inc. v. Wilson, 257 N.W.2d 739, 746-47 (Iowa 1977); Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 N.W.2d 672, 676-78 (Iowa 1970). 24 Defendants cite other evidence which tends to support their theory of causation, but it is not for us to decide whether defendants' or plaintiff's evidence is more persuasive. It is for the jury. See Schermer v. Muller, 380 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 1986); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Anderson-Weber, Inc., 252 Iowa 1289, 110 N.W.2d 449, 456 (1961); Bandstra v. International Harvester, Inc., 367 N.W.2d 282, 286-87 (Iowa App.1985). 25 The authorities cited by defendants either support this conclusion or are clearly distinguishable from the facts in this case. 3 The district court's decision granting defendants' renewed directed verdict motion must, therefore, be reversed.