Court Opinion

ID: 9723056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:01:23.950609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:44.277560
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Garrard, J.
I agree the judgment should be affirmed because Fruehauf has failed to demonstrate reversible error. However, it might be helpful to amplify upon the arguments Fruehauf has presented concerning strict liability.
It appears to me that Fruehauf’s position was essentially that either (a) Thornton’s account of how the upset occurred was not credible; or (b) if it occurred as described then Thornton’s action *25in driving upon the blown out tire for the brief period involved constituted an independent or intervening cause of the upset so as to preclude liability premised upon a defect in the tire.
Alternative (a) is not viable on appeal since the jury apparently credited Thornton’s account and there was probative evidence to support such a determination. Similarly, under the facts of this case the question of whether the blow out was a remote or a proximate cause of the truck upsetting was for the jury.
Fruehauf next attempts to argue in the context of instruction No. 14 given by the court that it was error to instruct the jury on both implied warranty and strict liability under § 402A of the Restatement of Torts (2nd). While under the facts it might have been harmless to omit an instruction on implied warranty, here it was clearly harmless to give the instruction.
Fruehauf also objected to the court’s refusal to give a tendered instruction regarding misuse of a product.1 The only evidence to support a contention that Thornton misused the tire related to his action in attempting to steer through the interchange after the blow out. Assuming arguendo that this may properly be considered a form of misuse, it was adequately presented to the jury by the instructions given by the court on causation. Accordingly, there was no error in refusing the instruction.
Note — Reported at 366 N.E.2d 21.

. No error is presented on refusal to give Fruehaufs tendered instruction No. 12 regarding incurred risk since there was neither a request nor permission granted to offer more than the ten instructions permitted by Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 51(D).