Tort
Joint Tortfeasors - Negligent Driver - Products Liability
Where a motorcycle rider was seriously injured by the failure of the windshield support bracket of the motorcycle which pierced his leg following a collision with a truck which had negligently turned left in front of the motorcycle, the manufacturer of the motorcycle and the negligent truck driver were joint tortfeasors and were jointly and severally liable to the injured person.
Judgment granting a new trial to defendant-motorcycle manufacturer is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict in favor of motorcycle rider.
Facts
Plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a truck that made a left turn directly into his path. The metal support bracket supporting the windshield of the motorcycle came loose in the collision and penetrated rider's leg, causing severe and permanent injuries.
Rider sued both the driver of the truck and the manufacturer of the motorcycle. Prior to trial, rider settled with the driver of the truck who agreed to remain as a party defendant on condition that plaintiff would not attempt to collect any amount of the judgment over the amount already paid in settlement. After a large verdict was returned for plaintiff, the trial court granted manufacturer's Motion for a new trial without assigning a specific reason other than a reference to three paragraphs of the Motion. The Court of Appeals considered the various matters raised in the paragraphs cited in the trial court's Order.
Joint Tortfeasors
"The term joint tort-feasors includes persons whose independent negligent acts have coalesced to cause a single indivisible injury....
"An indivisible injury results when two or more causes combine to produce a single injury incapable of division on any reasonable basis and each is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm....Whether or not the harm is capable of apportionment is a question of law....
"[Rider's] petition in this case was in several counts. In [one count], they alleged that [truck driver] was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. In [another count], which asserted that the...bracket was defective, they incorporated by reference the other petition counts and alleged that the...bracket caused or contributed to cause [rider's] injuries. The status of [truck driver and manufacturer] as joint tort-feasors is a reasonable and appropriate conclusion to be drawn from these allegations describing parties who have committed wrongful acts which are separate and distinct but which concur in a point of time and directly cause a single injury....It was enough for [rider] to plead facts showing [truck driver and manufacturer] to be alleged joint tort-feasors without the necessity for a statement expressly using the joint tort-feasor terminology."
Denial Of Severance
"The theories of liability supporting the claims against the two defendants were entirely different and separate. [Rider's] case against [manufacturer] was not aided at all by [truck driver's] acknowledgment of his own liability....
"The aggrievement [manufacturer] suffered in consequence of the common verdict and the assessment of damages...lies in the fact that it must bear responsibility to pay virtually the full award. That consequence follows, however, not because the cases against the two defendants were not severed, but because of the settlement [rider] negotiated with [truck driver]. [Manufacturer] claims the nominal participation by [truck driver] as a defendant when the case was tried `worked a fraud on the jury' and presented a sham controversy as between [rider and truck driver]. Even if that be so, the procedure employed in the settlement...is expressly authorized by Section 537.065, RSMo 1986 and the statute has passed judicial review."
Products Liability
"In Missouri, a product's design is deemed defective for purposes of imposing liability when it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the design renders the product unreasonably dangerous....
"[Manufacturer] yet contends the evidence was insufficient to make a submissible case because no proof was presented to show what injuries would have resulted from a safer design. Cited is Huddell v. Levin, 537 F.2d 726 (3d Cir. 1976), a case which holds plaintiff obligated to plead and prove the availability of a feasible safer design....Huddell has been criticized for imposing an impossible burden on plaintiffs....
"Although no Missouri case has squarely addressed the standard of proof to be used in a second collision case since the Huddell decision was made, Huddell was considered in [another federal case] and expressly rejected as not being representative of Missouri law....[A] plaintiff meets his burden of proving causation if the evidence shows that the product was a substantial factor in causing injuries in excess of those caused by the first collision....[T]he plaintiff need not prove with specificity those injuries actually caused by the specific defects in the product....It was adequate in this case for [rider] to show that the...bracket was a substantial factor in producing the severe injury to [rider's] leg."
Judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.
McDowell, et al. v. Kawasaki Motors Corporation USA, et al. (Missouri Lawyers Weekly No. DW4-379 _ 27 pages) (Clark, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Shinn, J. (Max W. Foust, Kansas City, Mo., and Robert L. Langdon, Lexington, Mo., for appellants) (John H. Campbell and Arthur C. Popham, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., for respondents).
© Copyright 1990 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.
