Barich v. Ottenstror

No. 13103 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN ISABELLE BARICH , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , SHIRLEY OTTENSTROR, A d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f t h e E s t a t e o f RICHARD OTTENSTROR a s owner o f t h e C I T Y TRANSFER A 1 STORAGE C M A Y N1 O PN and i n d i v i d u a l l y , AERO-MAYFLOWER TRANSIT COMPANY, and DONNER T T M COMPANY, AU Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. Robert J. Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g , Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : McKeon and S k a k l e s , Anaconda, Montana Michael McKeon argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondents : Knight, Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Wade J. nahood a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana Dolphy 0. Pohlman Jr. a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Submitted: March 2 , 1976 Dee i d e d : fdfi."/ 1 4 1976 Filed : r . !us t i c e J C I ~ I L~~ O L I W ~ Ya 'l rL ~ ~ U I 1 e l ~ v e r e dt n e -~ J p i ~ i i o n ~i layflower T r a n s i t Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , o r g a n i z e d under t h e laws Jr t h e s t a t e of I n d i a n a ; and t h e Donner Tatum Company, a c o r p o r a - !:ion, o r g a n i z e d under t h e laws of t h e s t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a . P l a i n t i f f B a r i c h s e e k s b o t h g e n e r a l and s p e c i a l damages froin d e f e n d a n t s a s compensation f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i c h a l a r g e c a r d b o a r d wardrobe box which was a l l e g e d l y c o n s t r u c t e d , ( d i s t r i b u t e d , s o l d and handled i n a n e g l i g e n t manner by d e f e n d a n t s . LIA a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h e o r y o f n e g l i g e n c e , t h e amended c o m p l a i n t > p e c i f i e s t h e c o n c e p t s of w a r r a n t y and s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y a s a l t e r - a a c i v e grounds f o r l i a b i l i t y . The r e c o r d c o n s i s t s of t h e p l e a d i n g s , p l a i n t i f f ' s l e p a s i t i o n , and t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and answers of a l l p a r t i e s . On t h i s b a s i s d e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n : ~ ~ o t i o n s r summary judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 6 , M.R.Civ.P. fo The motions were g r a n t e d and p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s . I t a p p e a r s t h a t i n J u n e 1968, a p p e l l a n t B a r i c h purchased for five dollars a new wardrobe c a r t o n from C i t y T r a n s f e r and . > t o r a g e , an a g e n t f o r Aero-Mayflower T r a n s i t Company. The c a r t o n is c o n s t r u c t e d o f c a r d b o a r d s h e e t s h e l d t o g e t h e r w i t h g l u e , and measures 24" x 2 2 : ' x 51". I t i s d i s t r i b u t e d b u t n o t manufactured by t h e Donner Tatum Company i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f i t s b u s i n e s s . The c a r t o n was purchased by a p p e l l a n t f o r u s e i n a proposed move from Anaconda t o Wexford, P e n n s y l v a n i a . A p p e l l a n t f i l l e d t h e c a r t o n w i t h s e v e r a l a r t i c l e s o f c l o t h i n g , and i t was ~ I A U V ~ ~ ~~ip1uyees 'y )e .Ji .+el - - : ? a y i l o ~ e r !rdr~.sitI J o r i l p d ~ i y , s e v e ~ d l . o weeks a f t e r i t s p u r c h d s e . Upon i t s a r r i v a l i n P e n n s y l v a ~ l i a , t h e : d ~ t o nwas unloaded and p l a c e d on p i e c e s of lumber i n an un- h e a t e d g a r a g e w i t h c o n c r e t e w a l l s and f l o o r . The c a r t o n remained i r ~t h a t g a r a g e f o r t h e n e x t two y e a r s s u b j e c t e d t o t h e v i c i s s i t u d e ~i t e m p e r a t u r e and h u m i d i t y t y p i c a l t o P e n n s y l v a n i a . I n June '970, a p p e l l a n t and h e r husband r e t u r n e d t o t h e Anaconda a r e a . They r e n t e d a t r u c k and performed a l l n e c e s s a r y packing and moving themselves. The now two y e a r o l d c a r t o n was p l a c e d i n a r e n t e d t r u c k S y Yr. B a r i c h and i t remained t h e r e u n t i l i t s a r r i v a l i n Anaconda. 11 1 a s s i s t i n g h e r husband w i t h t h e u n l o a d i n g o f t h e t r u c k , a p p e l l a n t was asked t o move t h e c a r t o n away from t h e s i d e w a l l o f t h e v e h i c l e . lo accomplish t h i s Mrs. B a r i c h p l a c e d h e r hand i n a s i d e s p a c e c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e c a r t o n a s a t y p e of h a n d l e , and p u l l e d on i t . The c a r t o n r i p p e d , and a p p e l l a n t f e l l backward i n t o a wheel w e l l , breaking her w r i s t . S e v e r a l p i c t u r e s o f t h e c a r t o n were a t t a c h e d t o a p p e l l a n t ' s d e p o s i t i o n f o r t h e purpose of d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t which apparently caused t h e a c c i d e n t . These p i c t u r e s a l s o s e r v e t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e b a s i c c o n d i t i o n of t h e c a r t o n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e accident. A f t e r o v e r two y e a r s of c o n t i n u e d u s e f o r b o t h s t o r a g e and moving, t h e c a r t o n , a l t h o u g h c l e a r l y s t i l l u s a b l e , showed t h e obvious s i g n s o f normal wear and t e a r . A p u n c t u r e h o l e e x i s t s on t h e same s i d e used by a p p e l l a n t when t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , and a huge t e a r i n t h e c a r d b o a r d a p p e a r s n e a r t h e b a s e of t h e c a r t o n . The box i s n e c e s s a r i l y r e i n f o r c e d by masking t a p e i n s e v e r a l c r i t i c a l a r e a s . A p p e l l a n t was u n a b l e t o r e c o u n t any s p e c i f i c f a c t s which might t e n d t o e x p l a i n t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n of t h e c a r t o n ' s c o n d i t i o n . T h i s C o u r t , on numerous o c c a s i o n s , h a s had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l i c a t e t h e fundamentals o f summary judgment under Rule 5 6 , M.R. i . . The i n i ~ i a burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a b s e n c e o f any g e n u i n e l i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t i s imposed upon t h e moving p a r t y . 14ustang S e v e r a g e Company, I n c . , v. J o s . S c h l i t z Brewing Company, 162 Mont. 243, 246, 1 1 . d , SUE here ;:he recdrd d i s c l o s e s 110 gerluine i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , r h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion i s r e q u i r e d t o produce e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f f a c t before t h e t r i a l court: "Thus t h e d e t e r m i n i t i v e q u e s t i o n h e r e i s w h e t h e r respondent has r a i s e d f a c t u a l i s s u e s t h a t a r e m a t e r i a l and of a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e . " State e x r e l . C i t y Motor Company v. D i s t . C o u r t , 32 -;t.Rep. 3 4 , 3 6 , 166 Mont. 5 2 , 530 P.2d 486. in l i g h t of Rule 5 6 , M.R.Civ.P., t h e p a r t y opposing a motion Eor ;unmary judgment on a r e c o r d which r e v e a l s no i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l < a c t must p r e s e n t f a c t s of a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e . Conclusory o r s p e c u l a t i v e statements a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e a genuine i s s u e of . n d ~ e r i a lf a c t . Harland v. Anderson, Mon t . 3 P.2d , 3.3 St.Rep. 363. The l e g a l problem p r e s e n t e d h e r e i s e s s e n t i a l l y a m a t t e r ~LUL~UCLli S ability. Because t h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s i n t h e c o n t e x t ai Xule 5 6 , M.R.Civ.P., o u r a n a l y s i s must i n i t i a l l y d e t e r m i n e t h e quantum and n a t u r e of proof r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y l e g a l b a s i s t o r e c o v e r f o r i n j u r i e s c a u s e d by a n u n s a f e p r o d u c t . T h i s Court h a s p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t proof o f t h e d e f e c t nay be made t h r o u g h i n f e r e n c e s drawn from c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , a s w e l l a s by d i r e c t e v i d e n c e . Brandenburger v . Toyota Motor S a l e s , l S 2 Mont. 506, 517, 513 P.2d 268. P r o f e s s o r P r o s s e r i n Law o f T o r t s 4 t h ed. 5103, p . 671, d i s c u s s e s what e l e m e n t s must b e e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e r e c o v e r y can b e had i n a p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n : If The proof r e q u i r e d of a p l a i n t i f f s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r f o r i n j u r i e s from an u n s a f e p r o d u c t i s v e r y l a r g e l y t h e same, whether h i s c a u s e of a c t i o n r e s t s upon n e g l i g e n c e , w a r r a n t , o r s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y in t o r t . 'On any o f t h e t h r e e b a s e s o f l i a b i l i t y , t h e p l a i n t i f f \ a s t h e i n i t i a l burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h r e e t h i n g s . ' i l ~ ef i r s t i s t h a t h e h a s been i n j u r e d by t h e p r o d u c t . , > - -1- #b J- A The second i s t h a t t h e i n j u r y o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e t h e product was d e f e c t i v e , u n r e a s o n a b l y u n s a f e . 9~ " , ,4, -L The t h i r d i s t h a t t h e d e f e c t e x i s t e d when t h e p r o d u c t l e f t che hands o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n d a n t . I I i i h b i i i t y J a s e s r e g a r d l e s s of t h e t h e o r y o f l i a b i l i t y advanced, w e a e e d n o t d i s c u s s t h e v a r i o u s t h e o r i e s upon which a p p e l l a n t seeks t o hold respondents l i a b l e . 63 A v . J u r 2d, P r o d u c t s L i a b i l i t y , ,$ 9 , p.1-9; Hursh, American Law of P r o d u c t s L i a b i l i t y 2d, 4 1 : 7 , 9. 19. It i s a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e i n products l i a b i l i t y cases :;hdt sl lianufacturer o r s e l l e r i s n o t l i a b l e f o r product caused i n j u r i e s i n t h e a b s e n c e of proof t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y i n q u e s t i o n was d e f e c t i v e o r dangerous a t t h e t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t was i-11 p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l of i t , o r when such p r o d u c t l e f t d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n and c o n t r o l . Richardson v. Farmers Union O i l Co., 131 Mont. 535, 312 P.2d 134; American R a d i a t o r & S t a n d a r d S a n i t a r y Sorp. v. F i x , 200 F.2d 529; Northern v . G e n e r a l Motors Corp., 2 iltah 2d 9 , 268 P.2d 981. I n Restatement o f T o r t s 2d 5 402A, t h i s z o n c e p t t o s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y s i t u a t i o n s a p p e a r s i n Comment g , p. h he burden o f proof t h a t t h e p r o d u c t was i n a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n a t t h e time t h a t i t l e f t t h e hands of t h e p a r t i c u l a r s e l l e r i s upon t h e i n j u r e d p l a i n t i f f ; and u n l e s s e v i d e n c e can b e produced which g i l l s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n c h a t i t was t h e n d e f e c t i v e , :he burden i s n o t s u s t a i n e d . I I t h e law does nor- presume t h a t a p r o d u c t was d e f e c t i v e s c t:he t i n w i t was u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l of a m a n u f a c t u r e r o r d i s - t r i b u L o r , from a mere showing t h a t a p r o d u c t may have been de- f e c t i v e a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t . Maryland Cas. Co. v. I n d e - pendent Metal P r o d u c t s Co., 203 F.2d 838. While a s p e c i f i c d e f e c t need n o t be shown where the e v i d e n c e t e n d s t o n e g a t e i n j u r y p r o - J u c i n g c a u s e s which do n o t r e l a t e t o a d e f e c t , t h i s r u l e c a n n o t se a p p l i e d u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e a l s o n e g a t e s t h e misuse o r m i s - !landling o f t h e p r o d u c t by t h e p l a i n t i f f . Franks v . N a t i o n a l D a i r y : ~ r o d u c t sCorp., 414 F.2d 682. Here, r e s p o n d e n t s met t h e i r i n i t i a l burden o f p r o o f under Xule 5 6 , when t h e y proved t h e p r o d u c t had been used f o r a con- s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h o f t i m e f o l l o w i n g i t s manufacture and s a l e . Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s , many c o u r t s have r e c o g n i z e d t h e l o g i c a l a p p e a l o f t h e i n f e r e n c e t h e d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n c o u l d n o t have e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e p r o d u c t was s o l d . Solomon v. White Motor Co., 153 F.Supp. 917; Auld v. S e a r s , Roebuck & Co., 261 App.Div. 918, 25 N.Y.S.2d 491, a f f ' d 4 1 N.E.2d 927; C o u r t o i s v. G e n e r a l ? f o t o r s Corp., 37 N . J . 5 2 5 , 182 A.2d 545; U.S. Rubber Co. v. Bauer, 319 F.2d 463; Kapp v. S u l l i v a n C h e v r o l e t Co., 234 Ark. 395, 353 S.W.2d 5 . A manufacturer o r s e l l e r i s n o t r e q u i r e d , under t h e law, t o produce o r s e l l a p r o d u c t t h a t w i l l n e v e r wear o u t . Jakubowski v , Minnesota Mining & 14anufacturing, 42 N . J . 177, 199 A.2d 826. Under t h e s e f a c t s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n r u l i n g t h a t n o g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d and t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s were e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. I t was incumbent upon a p p e l l a n t t o come forward w i t h proof overcoming t h e i n f e r e n c e s d e r i v e d from t h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i s s u e o f l o n g , c o n t i n u e d u s e t o a g a i n r a i s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y shown i n t h e p l e a d i n g s t h a t a g e n u i n e and m a t e r i a l f a c t i s s u e might have e x i s t e d . F a i l i n g such a showing, t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . - -- ~ o n .B;W. Thomas, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n . - 6 -