Court Opinion

ID: 9543666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:47:51.986546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:53.248013
License: Public Domain

Fitzgerald, J.
(concurring in result for remand). We concur in the result of Justice Levin’s opinion because, upon rehearing, we have become persuaded that there was a question of fact upon which reasonable minds could differ. A directed verdict on behalf of defendant was therefore, improper.
We find probative the evidence presented by plaintiffs’ witnesses that the break in the ball joint assembly occurred on the roadway before the driver lost control of the automobile, rather than after the automobile left the roadway and collided with a ditch and then a utility pole. In fact, General Motors, for purposes of the rehearing, conceded that the break occurred on the roadway. In addition, there was uncontroverted evidence that the break in the ball joint assembly was fresh and metallurgically clean and caused by an impact failure rather than fatigue or wear. Further, defendant’s expert testified that the automobile was *630designed to travel on roads even worse than the road on which the accident occurred. From this evidence, we believe that a jury question arises concerning a possible manufacturing defect in this particular ball joint assembly.
Accordingly, we find, after rehearing, that defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict since there appears to have been a genuine question of fact upon which reasonable minds could differ.
We concur in the remand.
Coleman and Ryan, JJ., concurred with Fitzgerald, J.