FRIEDMAN V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Sup. Ct. of Ohio, 43 Ohio St.2d 209, 331 N.E. 2d 702 (1975)
NATURE OF THE CASE: General Motors (D) Defendant appealed from an order of the Court of
Appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court granting D's motion for a directed verdict
in a products liability case involving an automobile that was alleged to be defective.
FACTS: Freidman (Ps) and their son, Sheldon, and their daughter, Susan, were driving east
on Lake Road in Lorain County. Their automobile, a 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado, had been
purchased some 17 months before. P pulled into a gasoline station on the north side of the
highway, stopped behind a Rambler which was being serviced at the forward pump of the
gasoline pump island, and, after waiting for a short period, turned off the ignition. P was
motioned to pull ahead to the forward set of pumps and as he turned on the ignition key and
started the engine, the Toronado moved forward. It 'peeled' away from the gasoline pumps,
bounced off the Rambler and a telephone pole, careened across the street into a commercial
parking lot, and crashed into the steel support posts of a large sign. The front end of the
Toronado was heavily damaged. The transmission linkages under the hood were jammed so that
the gear selector lever could not be shifted into Neutral, Reverse, or Park. All four
occupants of the car sustained injuries. Ps filed suit against D. The complaint alleges that
the collisions which followed '* * * were directly caused by defective mechanisms in the car
sold by Ds; and by the misrepresentations of the Ds that the car could not be started in
Drive position.' At trial the police testified that that neither the garage attendant, nor
the driver of the Rambler, mentioned mechanical failure on the part of the Toronado in their
accident reports. The officers testified that the gas pedal of the Toronado was stuck to the
floor, but that this was also based solely upon supposition. the peel marks of the
accelerating automobile were 85 feet and had begun at the middle of the gasoline pump
island. From that date to the date of the accident, no adjustment was made to the neutral
start switch, n1 the gear shift indicator needle, or the transmission linkage. Neither the
shift tube itself, the neutral start switch, nor the gear shift indicator, were damaged in
the collision. No post-accident repairs were made until the automobile had been inspected by
representatives of both Ps and Ds. An expert did start the damaged car and found that the
front wheels started rotating rapidly, accelerating to 30 miles per hour in five seconds.
The acceleration of the front wheels was so rapid, that the car would move forward. Ps
testified to the rapid acceleration. At the close of evidence D motioned for a directed
verdict and it was granted. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that reasonable minds
could differ on the evidence. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment