Case: UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a corporation; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation v. Brock ADAMS et al., Appellants
Abbreviation: United States v. General Motors Corp.
Decision Date: 1977-06-28
Docket Number: Nos. 75-1751, 75-1752
Citation: 183 U.S. App. D.C. 30
Volume: 183
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a corporation. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation v. Brock ADAMS et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before WRIGHT, LEVENTHAL, and ROBB, Circuit Judges.
Pages: 30–45

Head Matter:
561 F.2d 923
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a corporation. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation v. Brock ADAMS et al., Appellants.
Nos. 75-1751, 75-1752.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 23, 1976.
Decided June 28, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 18, 1977.
Neil H. Koslowe, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Rex E. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., and William Kanter, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants. Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellants.
James Robertson, Washington, D. C., with whom Michael L. Burack and Cornelius J. Golden, Jr., Washington, D. C., and Frazer F. Hilder, Detroit, Mich., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, LEVENTHAL, and ROBB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Opinion for the court per curiam.
Opinion dissenting in part filed by LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are fully stated in the dissent. While the court agrees with much of Judge Leventhal's scholarly opinion, we believe that the Government's motion for summary judgment should have been granted by the District Court, not only on the issue whether a defect existed in the steering pitman arm of the 1959-60 model Cadillac automobiles, but also on the issue whether the defect was related to motor vehicle safety. The evidence is uncontradicted that General Motors sold six times as many pitman arm replacements for the 1959-60 Cadillac models as for adjacent model years; that steering pitman arm failures have occurred while these models were being driven; and that when the steering pitman arm fails the driver loses control of the car. We hold that, under the statute, these uneontradieted facts demonstrate an "unreasonable risk of accidents" stemming from the defect. 15 U.S.C. § 1391(1) (1970).
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and these eases are remanded for determination of appropriate relief.
So ordered.