Court Opinion

ID: 9686932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:11:42.057577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.874455
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
Plaintiff brought a products liability action to recover for injuries sustained as the *349result of the failure of a tire manufactured by the defendant. The case was submitted to the jury on a theory of implied warranty. Plaintiff appeals from a verdict of no cause of action.
The only issue on appeal is whether uncontradicted testimony that the tire’s failure resulted from a manufacturing defect entitled the plaintiff to a jury instruction directing a finding that the tire was not reasonably fit for its anticipated use.
Defendant is a manufacturer of tires, one of which was sold to Great Lakes Express and installed. on the right front wheel of a cab tractor. As the tractor was hauling a trailer on 1-94, the tire’s tread splice delaminated causing a portion of the tread to fall off the tire. When the truck slowed to pull off the roadway, it was struck from behind by an automobile in which plaintiff was a passenger. Plaintiff was seriously injured and filed this action seeking damages.
At trial, plaintiff presented expert testimony that the tire’s failure was the result of a manufacturing defect—an open tread splice. In addition to describing the defect in detail, the expert witness also testified that his examination of the tire yielded no evidence of improper mounting or other condition that might have contributed to the tire failure. The opinions and conclusions of plaintiff’s expert were corroborated by the report of an independent expert and of an expert in the defendant’s employ.
The defendant rested without offering any proofs rebutting the above testimony and did not attempt to impeach either the testimony or the qualifications of plaintiff’s expert, whereupon the plaintiff moved the trial court to instruct the jury that as a matter of law the evidence had established a manufacturing defect. The court denied the motion, *350ruling that in a products liability action based upon an implied warranty (the only theory submitted to the jury) the existence of a manufacturing defect was "irrelevant and immaterial”.1
We hold that the plaintiff was entitled to the requested instruction.
To prevail against a manufacturer in a products liability case on a theory of implied warranty, a plaintiff must prove (a) the defect in manufacture upon which he relies, and (b) injury or damage caused by or resulting from such defect. Kupkowski v Avis Ford, Inc, 395 Mich 155; 235 NW2d 324 (1975), Caldwell v Fox, 394 Mich 401; 231 NW2d 46 (1975), Piercefield v Remington Arms Co, Inc, 375 Mich 85; 133 NW2d 129 (1965). The import of the foregoing cases is that the gravamen of an implied warranty action is an injury caused by a manufacturing defect in a product.
It may be that not all manufacturing defects render a product unfit for its anticipated use. Hence, undisputed proof that a product was in some way defective would not always prove that the product was not reasonably fit for the use for which it was intended. However, when the plaintiff proves that a particular defect caused the product’s failure while it was being used for its anticipated or reasonably foreseeable purpose or use, he has established the "defect” required to be proven in an implied warranty action.2 See Mosier v American Motors Corp, 303 F Supp 44 (SD Tex, 1967), aff'd 414 F2d 34 (CA 5, 1969).
In the instant case, all the pertinent evidence *351attributed the tire’s failure to a defect in manufacture. Where the testimony regarding a fact is undisputed the jury should be instructed to find that fact in accordance with that testimony. Douglas v Edgewater Park Co, 369 Mich 320; 119 NW2d 567 (1963), Dondero v Frumveller, 61 Mich 440; 28 NW 712 (1886), Bensinger v Happyland Shows, Inc, 44 Mich App 696; 205 NW2d 919 (1973).3 Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs motion. The proofs established the existence of a manufacturing defect. The jury should have been so instructed.
Because the jury returned a general verdict for the defendant, we can only speculate as to the reasons for their decision. Therefore, we reverse. Smith v Jones, 382 Mich 176; 169 NW2d 308 (1969), Rouse v Gross, 357 Mich 475; 98 NW2d 562 (1959). Insofar as the existence of a manufacturing defect has been established as a matter of law, we remand for a new trial to determine the remaining factors relating to defendant’s liability. See Bensinger v Happyland Shows, Inc, supra.
Costs to appellant.

 The trial court was convinced that the evidence did establish that a defect existed and indicated its willingness to so instruct the jury in the context of an express warranty theory.

 This statement harmonizes the language of the Supreme Court cases defining this cause of action with that of the pertinent standard jury instructions. SJI 25.23(a), (b).

 See Holbert v Staniak, 359 Mich 283; 102 NW2d 186 (1960), Druse v Wheeler, 26 Mich 189 (1872). Defendant would have us exclude expert testimony from this rule. However, neither the above cases nor those cited by the defendant support such a distinction.