NO. 82-267
I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA
1983
J E A N B R O T H E R S , KATHY B R O T H E R S ,
a n d S T A T E FARM MUTUAL A U T O M O B I L E I N C . ,
COMPANY,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
VS.
GENERAL MOTORS C O R P O R A T I O N , a n d
B I L L A T K I N VOLKSWAGEN, I N C . ,
D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y of S i l v e r B o w
H o n o r a b l e A r n o l d O l s e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t s :
W e l l c o m e & Frost, Bozeman, M o n t a n a
A l b e r t Frost argued, B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a
For R e s p o n d e n t s :
Poore Law Firm, B u t t e , Montana
J a m e s P o o r e , I11 a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
Submitted: January 18, 1983
Decided: February 18, 1983
Filed: FEB 1 8 5983
----- --4
C l e r k
Mr. J u s t i c e L . C. G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
P l a i n t i f f s brought this action in strict products l i a b i l i t y
and n e g l i g e n c e for injuries resulting from a c a r a c c i d e n t . The
District Court of the Second Judicial District, Silver Bow
County, granted summary j u d g m e n t f o r defendants and plaintiffs
appeal.
On J u n e 22, 1977, plaintiff Jean B r o t h e r s was d r i v i n g her
1976 Pontiac LeMans station wagon on Interstate 90 toward
Missoula, Montana, at about 50 m i l e s per hour. The road was
c l e a r and d r y . Her d a u g h t e r and g r a n d s o n were p a s s e n g e r s i n t h e
car.
A s s h e was d r i v i n g a r o u n d a g r a d u a l b e n d , J e a n B r o t h e r s f e l t
a tremor in the s t e e r i n g wheel, t h e n two s h o r t bumps, and was
suddenly unable to t u r n t h e wheel. The car f a i l e d to go a r o u n d
the bend, moving from the right lane, into the l e f t lane, and
down i n t o t h e m e d i a n d i t c h .
The i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r f o u n d n o e v i d e n c e of d r i v e r error
and d i d n o t issue a ticket t o Mrs. Brothers. H e noted on t h e
a c c i d e n t r e p o r t t h a t t h e c a r ' s l e f t f r o n t t i r e was f l a t and t h a t
its deflation may have pulled the car off of the road.
Mrs. Brothers and her husband had purchased the car in
November 1 9 7 6 , from d e f e n d a n t B i l l A t k i n V o l k s w a g e n . The car was
u s e d , w i t h a n o d o m e t e r r e a d i n g of a b o u t 3 , 5 0 0 m i l e s . A t the t i m e
of t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e c a r had b e e n d r i v e n a b o u t 7 , 6 0 0 m i l e s . The
car's warranty history revealed no significant mechanical
p r o b l e m s or r e p a i r s .
A mechanic a t a front-end r e p a i r shop i n Missoula looked a t
the front-end of the plaintiff's car, but could find nothing
wrong. The steering column was removed and examined by Mrs.
B r o t h e r s q s o n who is a m e c h a n i c . H e f o u n d n o t h i n g wrong. A pro-
f e s s o r o f m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g examined t h e s t e e r i n g column and
a l s o f o u n d n o t h i n g wrong. None of the other potential experts
b r o u g h t f o r w a r d by a p p e l l a n t s g a v e t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e car was
defective.
The car was taken to a wrecking yard and has long since
disappeared.
The g e n e r a l i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e summary j u d g m e n t f o r d e f e n -
d a n t s was p r o p e r may be b r o k e n down i n t o two s u b s i d i a r y i s s u e s :
1. W h e t h e r a p p e l l a n t s m e t t h e i r b u r d e n to show t h a t a d e f e c t
i n t h e car c a u s e d t h e i n j u r y and t h a t t h e d e f e c t was t r a c e a b l e t o
the respondents.
2. W h e t h e r r e s i p- s -a- -l -o -- u i --u r s h o u l d be a p p l i e d t o t h i s case.
- q - t --
A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Mrs. B r o t h e r s and h e r
d a u g h t e r , as w e l l as t h e good c o n d i t i o n of t h e c a r , is s u f f i c i e n t
e v i d e n c e t o make a p r i m a -a- i- c a s e i n s t r i c t p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y .
f c e
According to a p p e l l a n t s , t h i s evidence raises t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t
the vehicle's s t e e r i n g mechanism was d e f e c t i v e i n e i t h e r d e s i g n
o r manufacture. W e do n o t a g r e e .
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 , t h e p l a i n t i f f m u s t show t h r e e
things: 1) the plaintiff was i n j u r e d b y t h e p r o d u c t ; 2) the
i n j u r y occurred because t h e p r o d u c t was d e f e c t i v e and unreason-
a b l y d a n g e r o u s ; and 3 ) t h e d e f e c t e x i s t e d when i t l e f t t h e h a n d s
of the particular defendant. Duncan v . Rockwell Manufacturing
Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 382, 567 P.2d 936; Barich v. Ottenstror
(1976) 1 7 0 Mont. 3 8 , 5 5 0 P.2d 3 9 5 , c i t i n g P r o s s e r on T o r t s ( 4 t h
ed.) 103.
Circumstantial evidence, as w e l l a s d i r e c t e v i d e n c e , may be
used to show a defect. Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A. Inc. ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 2 Mont. 506, 5 1 3 P.2d 268. A plaintiff
does not meet his burden of proof, however, by merely
e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t an a c c i d e n t occurred. Brown v. N o r t h A m e r i c a n
Manufacturing Co. (1978), 176 Mont. 98, 576 P.2d 711. In
b--
B.- a- n d e n -- u r g e r , w e a d o p t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d of p r o o f
r to show
a d e f e c t i n a manufacturer's product:
"The n a t u r e and q u a l i t y o f e v i d e n c e used i n
p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y c a s e s t o show t h e d e f e c t
a n d t h e n e x u s b e t w e e n t h e d e f e c t and t h e acci-
dent naturally varies. The most c o n v i n c i n g
e v i d e n c e is a n e x p e r t ' s p i n p o i n t i n g t h e d e f e c t
a n d g i v i n g h i s o p i n i o n on t h e p r e c i s e c a u s e of
t h e a c c i d e n t af ter a thorough i n s p e c t i o n . If
an accident s u f f i c i e n t l y destroys the product,
o r the c r u c i a l p a r t s , then an e x p e r t ' s opinion
on t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h a t a d e f e c t caused t h e
a c c i d e n t would be h e l p f u l . I f no s u c h o p i n i o n
i s p o s s i b l e , a s i n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e
u s e r ' s t e s t i m o n y on what h a p p e n e d is a n o t h e r
method o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e p r o d u c t was d e f e c -
tive. I f t h e u s e r is u n a b l e t o t e s t i f y , as
w h e r e t h e a c c i d e n t k i l l e d him o r i n c a p a c i t a t e d
h i m , no o t h e r w i t n e s s was p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e
of the accident, and the product was
d e s t r o y e d , t h e f a c t o f t h e a c c i d e n t and t h e
p r o b a b i l i t i e s are a l l t h a t remain f o r t h e
p a r t y seeking recovery. A t t h i s point the
p l a i n t i f f c a n a t t e m p t t o n e g a t e t h e u s e r as
t h e c a u s e and f u r t h e r n e g a t e o t h e r c a u s e s n o t
a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . These k i n d s of
p r o o f i n t r o d u c e d a l o n e or c u m u l a t i v e l y a r e
e v i d e n c e which h e l p e s t a b l i s h t h e p r e s e n c e of
a d e f e c t as t h e c a u s e o f t h e damage." 513
P.2d at 275, quoting Stewart v. Budget
Rent-A-Car ( 1 9 7 0 ) r 5 2 Haw. 7 1 , 470 P.2d 240,
243.
T h i s f l e x i b l e s t a n d a r d o f c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c a n be m e t
by proof of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e a c c i d e n t , s i m i l a r o c c u r r e n -
ces u n d e r s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and e l i m i n a t i o n of alternative
causes. Brown, s u p r a ; B r a n d e n b u r g e r ,
-- supra.
Under Rule 5 6 , M.R.Civ.P., the p a r t y opposing a motion f o r
summary judgment must present facts of a substantial nature.
S p e c u l a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t to r a i s e a g e n u i n e i s s u e
o f material f a c t . B a r i c h , s u p r a ; Duncan, s u p r a .
The a p p e l l a n t s h e r e h a v e f a i l e d t o meet t h e f l e x i b l e s t a n d a r d
s e t down i n B r a n d e n b u r g e r . T h e r e was no a t t e m p t to introduce
evidence of similar occurrences under similar circumstances.
M o r e o v e r , and p e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d to
eliminate alternative causes of the accident. While the
p l a i n t i f f s ' own c o n d u c t may n o t h a v e b e e n a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r ,
t h a t i s n o t t h e o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e t h a t s h o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d .
A l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e s i n c l u d e t i r e f a i l u r e , l o s s o f h y d r a u l i c power-
steering, improper maintenance, abuse by the prior owner, or
foreign objects in the steering mechanism, among others.
Because t h e a l l e g a t i o n s r a i s e d by p l a i n t i f f s are s o specula-
tive, t h e y c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d g e n u i n e i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t .
A p p e l l a n t s n e x t claim t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t f o r
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e of - - l o q u i t u r .
res i p s a Such a n a r g u -
ment, on its face, seems incorrect. Generally, res i p s a
- - is
applied to human conduct, not defective products. It is the
d r i v e r o f a v e h i c l e or a p i l o t of a n a i r p l a n e who may be s u b j e c t
t o t h e r--- ---s- p r e s u m p t i o n .
es i p a
-. S e e W h i t n e y v . N o r t h w e s t Greyhound
Lines, Inc. ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 2 5 Mont. 528, 242 P.2d 257; Knowlton v.
Sandaker ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 0 Mont. 438, 436 P.2d 98; and Tompkins v.
N o r t h w e s t e r n Union T r u s t Co. (1982), -- . Mont . - -- - , 6 4 5 P.2d
I n T o m p k i n s , w e q u o t e d t h e R e s t a t e m e n t ( S e c o n d ) of T o r t s , 5
328D, as properly stating the doctrine of res i p s a l o q u
- - -itur: -
" (1) I t may be i n f e r r e d t h a t harm s u f f e r e d b y
t h e p l a i n t i f f is c a u s e d by n e g l i g e n c e of t h e
d e f e n d a n t when
" ( a ) t h e e v e n t is o f a k i n d w h i c h o r d i n a r i l y
d o e s n o t o c c u r i n t h e a b s e n c e of n e g l i g e n c e ;
" ( b ) other responsible causes, including the
c o n d u c t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h i r d p e r s o n s ,
are s u f f i c i e n t l y e l i m i n a t e d by t h e evidence;
and
" ( c ) t h e i n d i c a t e d negligence is w i t h i n the
scope of the defendant's duty to the
plaintiff.
" ( 2 ) I t is t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t o
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e i n £ e r e n c e may r e a s o n a b l y
be drawn by t h e j u r y , o r w h e t h e r it must
n e c e s s a r i l y be drawn.
" ( 3 ) I t is t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e j u r y to d e t e r -
m i n e w h e t h e r t h e i n f e r e n c e is to be drawn i n
a n y c a s e w h e r e d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s may
r e a s o n a b l y be r e a c h e d." 6 4 5 P.2d a t 406.
While we have stated that exclusive control over the
s i t u a t i o n is n o t a n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t of a -- - c a s e , w e h a v e
res i p s a
nevertheless acknowledged that exclusive control helps to
e s t a b l i s h t h e p r o b a b l e c a u s e of the accident. Tompkins, s u p r a .
Here, t h e c o n t r o l e x e r c i s e d by d e f e n d a n t s , G e n e r a l Motors and
Bill A t k i n Volkswagen, is so remote t h a t any c a u s a l connection
b e t w e e n t h e i r d u t y and t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' i n j u r i e s has been broken.
Moreover , as s t a t e d e a r l i e r , because a p p e l l a n t s have failed to
eliminate other reasonable causes, t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n s are p u r e l y
speculative. I n s u c h a c a s e , no r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e - of n e g l i -
//
gence may be made and res
- - sa
ip
- l
- oquitur is not applicable.
The summary j u d g m e n t is a f f i r m e d .
i
X r j /2 /
,
L-
".c [
'Lica*-wv?/ -,
Justice
We concur:
s;& s,GgdLfLyFeRQ,
C h i e f Just4ce