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 Hydrovac, a booster unit. The parties stipulated that the accident occurred because of brake failure. Premised on a theory of strict liability, he maintains the product was unreasonably dangerous because of both manufacturing and design defects. 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. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION had the knowledge, capacity, and capability to incorporate a split (dual) brake system, and in fact did so as optional equipment, if ordered by purchaser. was designed, manufactured in part, and assembled.
was equipped with a single brake system offered as the standard system and not a split (dual) system. The failure of a brake line carrying hydraulic fluid was a cause of the brake failure occurring on the aforesaid vehicle on August 4, 1978. That on or about May 25, 1978, Town and Country GMC, an authorized dealer of General Motors Corporation took delivery of the aforesaid chassis-cab at the Silverdome in Pontiac, Michigan, and brought it to Billings. vehicle at its plant in Pontiac, Michigan. ENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION designed, manufactured in part, and assembled the. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION designed, manufactured in part, assembled, and sold the certain 1978 two ton chassis-cab. accident, the 1978 GMC two ton chassis-cab equipped with a water tank was 4-6 weeks old, having been purchased and delivery taken on or about June 28, 1978. That on the 4th day of August, 1978, on the Shepherd Road, near mile post number 1, in the County of Yellowstone, State of Montana, JOHN STANLEY FISHER was driving a 1978 GMC, two ton chassis-cab equipped with a water tank when it collided with the rear of the 1968 GMC pickup truck being operated by MICHAEL RIX and in which Michael Eaton was a passenger. The pertinent portion of the revised pretrial order contained the following stipulated facts: 48ġ. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by refusing to compel GMC to further supplement its discovery responses? 46 Did the District Court abuse its discretion by admitting GMC's cross-examination of Dan Williams? 44Ħ. Is res ipsa loquitur applicable to products liability under a strict liability theory? 42ĥ. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by excluding disputed conversations between two insurance adjusters? 40Ĥ. Is Rule 407, M.R.Evid., applicable to products liability under a strict liability theory, thus making evidence of subsequent design changes not admissible? 38ģ.
#RIX V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP TRIAL#
Did the trial court properly instruct the jury on strict liability? 36Ģ. Following a jury verdict for GMC, plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff sued GMC on a theory of strict liability in the Yellowstone County District Court. 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. Bellingham argued, Billings, for defendant and respondent. Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather, Randy H. Kelly & Halverson, P.C., Billings, Patrick Prindle argued, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff and appellant. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.
0 kommentar(er)
