Opinion ID: 379106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: freightliner's cross appeal

Text: 32 Freightliner urges reversal of the trial court's determination that decedent, Billy Maxey, did not assume the risk of use from appellee's product. We fail to find favor with such suggestion. 33 As appellants suggest, the contention that Freightliner as a national manufacturer of truck/tractors was unaware of post-crash hazards relating to side-mounted fuel tanks, but that Billy Maxey, a truck driver and mechanic with a high school education should be charged with knowledge and appreciation of the nature and extent of this risk is untenable. 34 Knowledge of the specific defect and appreciation of the dangers created by the defect are required to sustain a finding of assumption of the risk. Bailey v. Boatland, 585 S.W.2d 805 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston 1979). Cases in Texas on volenti or assumption of the risk are clear in requiring subjective knowledge and intelligent appreciation of the specific danger involved. 35 In Rabb v. Coleman, 469 S.W.2d 384 (Tex.1971), the Supreme Court of Texas stated: 36 The intelligent choice to expose oneself to a danger presupposes an awareness of that particular danger. The success of the volenti defense in Texas cases has turned on whether or not it was established that the plaintiff knew he was exposing himself to the danger which in fact caused him harm. Id. at p. 387. (emphasis added). 37 We agree with the trial court that on the facts submitted below and on this appeal, a charge of assumption of the risk against plaintiffs' decedent would be inappropriate. 38 Freightliner argues that the record below fails to support recovery against it on a theory of strict products liability. Such contention evolves from the position of Freightliner that the accident itself and not the subsequent fire resulted in Billy and Dee Maxey's death. 39 The trial court summarized the defective nature of the fuel system as follows: 40 Freightliner designed the fuel system on the truck-tractor so that the diesel fuel containers, commonly called saddle tanks, were located near the frame rails. The design placed the fuel tanks in proximity to occupants and close to ignition sources. These aluminum tanks lacked a flexible bladder to absorb impact and fuel line fittings which would separate in a crash, devices designed to reduce the fire hazard of the crash. 4 41 The Maxey's expert, Mr. Robertson, was a transportation safety engineer qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction, design of crash resistant fuel systems, study of body behavior and injury producing mechanisms in crashes, including toxic hazards from fires. 5 His testimony preparation included viewing the remains of the wreckage, the accident scene, the photos, technical reports and statistics regarding truck fire hazards, reading all depositions taken in the case, looking at the police report and studying engineering drawings of the truck. 6 Robertson testified that the noxious fumes contained in the smoke from the fuel fire incapacitated the Maxeys and prevented their escape from the vehicle. 7 Appellees take the position on appeal that such testimony was nothing more than speculation. The jury and the trial judge found otherwise. 42 We think that Robertson was a qualified expert whose testimony reached a level above that of speculation or mere conjecture and formed a sufficient basis for the products liability claim of the Maxeys. 43 On May 8, 1978, appellee filed a conditional motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Since this was based upon evidence discovered subsequent to the trial proceedings, it did not appear in the record of the trial on its merits. The trial court was not called upon to rule on this issue. The appellee sought no ruling or hearing on said motion by this court, save in the event that we should disturb the judgment below. In light of our ruling herein, we deem this motion moot. 44 AFFIRMED.