dissenting:
I dissent.
As Justice Bistline explained in Gmeiner v. Yacte, 100 Idaho 1, 592 P.2d 57 (1979), in reviewing the grant of a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict this Court must determine “whether as a matter of law, the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence (not a mere scintilla) from which reasonable minds could conclude that a verdict in favor of this plaintiff was proper.” Id. at 4, 592 P.2d at 60. Thus, before this Court may overturn this directed verdict, we must find that Mr. Fouche produced substantial evidence from which reasonable minds could conclude that a verdict in favor of Mr. Fouche was proper. Substantial evidence has not been produced here.
Construing the facts in a light most favorable to Mr. Fouche does not change the basic facts of the case. Mr. Fouche suffered injuries when he drove his 1972 Dodge Colt into the rear of a parked 1955 Ford. Mr. Fouche testified that he was traveling between 50 and 55 m.p.h. at the time of impact. Although Mr. Fouche was wearing a seatbelt at the time of impact, he was not wearing the shoulder harness with which the Dodge Colt was equipped. At trial, two physicians testified as to the extent of Mr. Fouche’s injuries. However, neither physician testified as to what would cause an aorta to rupture. Further, as the trial court correctly stated, “The only evidence at all that I can conceive that’s been presented [proving that Mr. Fouche’s injuries would not have occurred except for the alleged defects] is the plaintiff’s own testimony that he sat in the vehicle and tried to see how far he could go forward. But this would be irrelevant to the question of how far forward his body could go if it were stopped suddenly at the speed of 55 miles per hour.” Thus, not only did Mr. Fouche fail to show what caused his aorta to rupture, he failed to prove any connection between the alleged defects and the injury.
Not even a “mere scintilla” of evidence was presented to show that any alleged defect in the Dodge Colt’s safety equipment caused Mr. Fouche’s aorta to rupture. Although Mr. Fouche’s aorta was seemingly ruptured during the collision, an occupant of a vehicle which strikes a stationary automobile while traveling between 50 and 55 m.p.h. might be expected to sustain some injuries — regardless of the safety equipment provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle. In fact, it is entirely possi*706ble that Mr. Fouche’s torn aorta resulted from his body’s impact with the seatbelt itself. At trial the treating physician, Dr. Holdren, testified that Mr. Fouche suffered no bone damage as the result of the accident. If, as the plaintiff suggests, the torn aorta resulted from the body’s impact with the steering wheel when the wheel allegedly failed to fully collapse, it would seem that the force of the impact would have caused more than minor bruising of Mr. Fouche’s chest. In any event, the plaintiff had the burden of establishing causation, and that required some evidence that the torn aorta was the result of the allegedly defective seatbelt or steering column, and not merely the result of the accident of which he, and not the manufacturer, was the cause. Although the plaintiff introduced testimony from his doctor concerning the torn aorta, there was no attempt by the plaintiff’s witness to tie the torn aorta to the defective equipment. Accordingly, there was no evidence upon which to establish causation, and the trial court correctly directed a verdict in favor of the defendants. To allow a jury to speculate as to the cause of injury, based on this plaintiff’s limited presentation of “proof”, is error. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s directed verdict.
SHEPARD, J., concurs.