Rix v.General Motors Corp.
Supreme Court of Montana,1986
222 Mont.318,723 P.2d 195
WEBER,J.
In 1978,Michael Rix was injured when the pickup he was driving was hit from behind by a 1978 General Motors Corporation (GMC) two ton chassis-cab,which had been equipped with a water tank after sale by the GMC dealer.Plaintiff sued GMC on a theory of strict liability in the Yellowstone County District court.Following a jury verdict for GMC,plaintiff appeals….
1.Did the trial court properly instruct the jury on strict liability?
…(https://www.daowen.com)
Plaintiff contends he was injured by an unreasonably dangerous 1978 two ton chassis-cab,which had been placed in the stream of commerce by GMC.Premised on a theory of strict liability,he maintains the product was unreasonably dangerous because of both manufacturing and design defects.
The parties stipulated that the accident occurred because of brake failure.Expert testimony from both parties established that the fluids necessary to the braking system had escaped when a brake tube came out of a nut where it fastened to the top of the Hydrvac,a booster unit.Witnesses also testified that the brake tube came out of the nut either because the tube broke or was improperly flared.
Plaintiff contends that the tube broke because there was a manufacturing defect in the tube,basically a bad flare,when the truck came off the assembly line.Plaintiff also contends that the brake system on the truck,a single system,was defectively designed,and argues that GMC’s knowledge of available technology coupled with the foreseeable use of the vehicle should have mandated a dual braking system,which provides extra braking power.Plaintiff maintains the accident would have been less severe or would not have happened had the truck been equipped with a dual system.
GMC agreed that the brake tube was defective,but contended that the tube had been altered after it left the GMC assembly line,so that the defective tube was not GMC’s responsibility.GMC also contended that the single system was neither a design defect nor unreasonably dangerous,and that the accident would have occurred even if the truck had been equipped with a dual brake system.
Did the trial court properly instruct the jury on strict liability?