BRANDENBURGER v TOYOTA MOTOR SALES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12349 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1973 KUBY BRANDENBURGER, A d m i n i s t r a t r i x of t h e E s t a t e o f CLARENCE R. BRANDENBURGER, d e c e a s e d , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, TOYOTA M T R SALES , U. S .A. OO and TOYOTA MOTOR CO. , LTD. , , INC ., Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s , TAFFORD OLTZ, Defendant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W . L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellants : Berg, ~ ' C o n n e l l ,Angel and A n d r i o l o , Bozeman, Montana. C h a r l e s F. Angel a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana For Tafford O l t z : B e n n e t t and B e n n e t t , Bozeman, Montana. Lyman H . B e n n e t t , Jr. , a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana. F o r Respondent : Landoe, Gary and White, Bozeman, Montana. Hjalmar B. Landoe and Donald E. White a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana. S u b m i t t e d : J u n e 18, 1973 F i l e d : *tiJb '/ - T$3 Decided : A1-G 7 - 7973 Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John C . Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment and denial of a motion f o r judgment in accordance with motion f o r directed verdict or f o r new t r i a l in an action t r i e d i n the d i s t r i c t court of the eighteenth judicial d i s t r i c t , county of Gallatin. The case was t r i e d t o a jury which returned a verdict in favor of p l a i n t i f f Ruby Brandenburger, administratrix of the e s t a t e of Clarence R . Brandenburger, deceased. Defendants i n t h e action were Tafford Oltz, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. Tafford Oltz did not appeal the judgment, but appeared on appeal as a cross-complainant against the remaining defendants f o r any sums he might be required t o pay p l a i n t i f f . The jury verdict i n d i s t r i c t court was against a77 de- fendants in the amount of $125,000. The accident i n question occurred in the l a t e afternoon of August 3 , 1970. Tafford Oltz and his friend and fishing partner, Clarence R. Brandenburger, were driving south from Bozeman, Montana on U.S. Highway 191 t o do some fishing. Oltz was d r i v i n g his 7969 Toyota Land Cruiser which he had purchased in February 1969 a t Rochester, Minnesota. v i s i b i l i t y good and the road was dry. The weather was c l e a r , Approximately eight miles south of Bozeman, according t o the testimony of Oltz, Brandenburger yelled a t him t o look out f o r rocks on the road which Oltz described as about f i s t sized and scattered over the road. He swerved t o the r i g h t t o avoid h i t t i n g rocks, his vehicle l e f t the highway, overturned, and the top of the vehicle came o f f . Both men were thrown out of the car through the opening created by the top coming o f f . Brandenburger was crushed by the r o l l i n g c a r ; Oltz was injured. There was c o n f l i c t i n the testimony as t o what happened when t h e vehicle l e f t the road and went onto the s o f t graveled shoulder. A t the time of the accident Oltz estimated he was traveling between 50 and 60 miles per hour. The investigating highway patrolman's measurements indicated the 01 t z vehicle traveled w i t h the l e f t wheels on the pavement and the r i g h t wheels off the pavement some 129 f e e t , 8 inches, whereupon the l e f t wheels a1 so dropped onto the shoulder and the vehicle traveled down the barrow p i t parallel to the road another 83 f e e t , 7 inches. A t t h i s point, the vehicle made a sharp l e f t turn in an attempt to regain the road, skidded sidewards and overturned. The vehicle rolled on the passenger side f i r s t , and as i t continued t o r o l l , assumed an upright position a t which time the roof "popped" o f f , and the eyewitnesses observed the bodies of the passengers flying out. The vehicle continued to roll and i t was apparently a t t h i s time t h a t i t crushed Brandenburger. The vehicle was equipped with seat be1 t s , b u t neither man was wearing one a t the time of the accident. The roof panel of the Toyota Land Cruiser was constructed of several layers of laminated fiber glass, riveted t o a steel r a i l , which in turn was bolted t o the steel body of the cab. The r i v e t s were spaced approx- imately 4 inches apart around the roof and were 1/8 inch in diameter. Oltz t e s t i f i e d when he purchased the Land Cruiser he was aware of the f i b e r glass top and that i t had no r o l l bars or supports of s t e e l . This ,is a products l i a b i l i t y case. P l a i n t i f f maintained the f a c t the roof "popped off" was a r e s u l t of defective design. The respondent conceded the allegedly faulty design did not cause the accident b u t contended such design greatly increased the chances of death in an accident. here i s the l i a b i l i t y of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., The issue Inc., and Toyota Motor Co., L t d . Appellants present four issues f o r t h i s Court's consideration which w summarize in t h i s manner: e 1. Mhether s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y in t o r t should have been submitted to the jury? 2. Whether there was substantial evidence showing negl igence on the part of the manufacturer, and i f so, was the defect resulting from such negligence a proximate cause of Clarence R . Brandenburger's death? 3. Whether there was an irregularity in the proceedings which prevented the manufacturer and distributor from having a f a i r t r i a l when p l a i n t i f f and defendant Oltz s e t t l e d the matter between themselves during the t r i a l ? Before discussing the issues, w r e i t e r a t e the rules stated in e Strong v . Williams, 154 Mont. 65, 68, 460 P.2d 90: " I t i s well settled in t h i s jurisdiction t h a t wherever there i s a conflict in the evidence t h i s Court may only review the testimony f o r the purpose of determining whether there i s any substantial evidence in the record t o support the verdict of the jury, and w must accept e the evidence there found as t r u e , unless t h a t evidence i s so inherently impossible or improbable as not t o be entitled t o be1 i ef. Where the evidence i s conf 1 icting , b u t substantial evidence appears in the record to support the judgment, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal, and t h i s i s especially true when the d i s t r i c t court, as here, has passed upon the sufficiency of the evidence on motion f o r a new t r i a l and upheld i t s sufficiency. Batchoff v . Craney, 119 Mont. 157, 172 P.2d 308; Wallace v . Wallace, 85 Mont. 492, 279 P . 374, 66 A.L.R. 587. The evidence must be viewed in the l i g h t most favorable to the prevailing party. If that evidence sustains the verdict then w must sustain the action of the t r i a l e judge. " See also: State Highway Commission v. Vaughan, 155 Mont. 277, 470 P.2d 967; Knudson v . Edgewater Automotive Division, 157 Mont. 400, 486 P.2d 596. Issue 1. Whether s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y in t o r t should have been sub- mitted to the jury? Counsel f o r a l l parties recognize that t h i s Court has not previously squarely faced the proposition as to whether or not s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i s the applicable law in Montana. I t was considered in Jangula v. United States Rubber Company, 147 Mont. 98, 410 P.2d 462, 149 Mont. 241, 425 P.2d 319, b u t under the f a c t s there i t was deemed not applicable. Appellants argue t h i s Court has refused t o apply the doctrine of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y in three recent cases, therefore i t i s not the law of Montana and the t r i a l court erred in i t s instructions to the jury. W will consider each of the cases cited by e appellants t o show that in each instance the case was decided on grounds other than s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y . Knudson v . Edgewater Automotive Division, 157 Mont. 400, 486 P.2d 596: There we held that the t r i a l court did not insert s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y into the case, under the instructions given. As to the instructions given, w e noted an instruction that a manufacturer of "a product that i s reasonably certain to be dangerous i f negligently made has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, testing, inspection and manufacture of such product so that the product may be safely used in a manner and f o r the purpose f o r which i t was made", when considered with the other instructions, and the instruction to consider a l l the instructions as a whole, did not improperly imply s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y on the manufacturer. Duchesneau v . Silver Bw County, 158 Mont. 369, 378, 492 P.2d 926: o In t h i s case the Court said: "The g i s t of the claim by Wilson Motors and i t s property damage insurer against Roberts and Mack Trucks i s negligent design and instal lation of the powering steering u n i t , cons t i t u t i n g the proximate cause of the accident." B u t , t h i s case was argued on negligence and not s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y . However, Justice Haswell noted and i t i s of i n t e r e s t here, t h a t : "The foregoing testimony indicates the power steering unit was purchased in 1967 from Mack Trucks, and i f i t was in f a c t negligently designed, there i s a possible basis for s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y against Mack Trucks." Ford v . Rupple, Mont . , 504 P.2d 686, 691, 29 St.Rep. 1081: This case involved an action against General Motors and others f o r i n j u r i e s sustained by a passenger riding in a 1968 Corvette involved in a sideswipe which col 1ision ./went out of control and coll ided headon with another vehicle. Under the f a c t s presented, the t r i a l court granted summary judgment in favor of General Motors and p l a i n t i f f appealed. ruling. This Court upheld the d i s t r i c t court Is Mr. Justice Daly, a f t e r thoroughly reviewing the cases cited and t e x t writers , concl uded : "In Mang v. Eliasson, 153 Mont. 431, 458 P.2d 777, t h i s Court rejected any doctrine of abstract foreseeabil i t y and affirmed the doctrine of reasonable foreseeabi 1i ty , b u t in that case found no necessity to reach the law of 'causation ' absent a finding of duty. However, causation was most recently discussed in terms of proximate cause and the 'but f o r ' rule affirmed in DeVerniero v . Eby, Mont. , 496 P.2d 290, 293, i n t h i s language: " 'Proximate cause i s a twofold legal concept which may limit l i a b i l i t y depending upon the existence of (1 ) an intervening a c t and ( 2 ) the unforeseeability of that intervening act. This Court stated in Sztaba v . Great Northern Ry., 147 Mont. 185, 195, 411 P.2d 379, 385: ""'Causation i s a f a c t . I t i s important t o determine causation f i r s t to avoid i t s confusion with the issues t o follow. This i s not a re1 atiorlship between negl igence and injury, b u t rather a causal relation between conduct and hurt, both of which are factual concepts. I t i s only a f t e r the causal relationship, duty, and i t s scope are found t h a t the negligence issue i s reached. 61 Co1.L.R. 1401. ""'The t e s t most generally employed in determining causation i s the 'but f o r y e s t . Montana has adopted t h i s t e s t in numerous cases. ""'Proximate cause i s one 'which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new, independent cause, produces the injury, and without which the injury would n o t have occurred.' Stroud v . Chicago M . [&I S t . P . 8 P. Ry. Co., 75 Mont. 384, 393, 243 P. 1089, 1092." (Emphasis added.) ' "The principle urged by plaintiff under the f a c t s of t h i s case f a l l s into the area of 'abstract foreseeability' condemned in Mans and f a i 1 s t o meet the law in re1 ation t o causation as i t exists in Montana." This brings us t o the instant case and the question of whether Montana should adopt the doctrine of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y . W note here t h a t e both the federal d i s t r i c t court of Montana and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have considered Montana case law and have anticipated action by t h i s Court, in cases heard in those courts recently. Federal Judge Russell E. Smith in Hornung v . Richardson-Merrill, Inc., 317 F.Supp., 183, 184, held: "The t o r t limitation i s applied t o the warranty count for these reasons: In the absence of a control1 ing decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, the federal courts in Montana s i t t i n g in diversity cases have looked t o and adopted as the applicable rule of law i n Montana the Restatement of the Law of Torts, Second, and the s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y rule announced therein. The s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y rule will be applied in t h i s case." The Ninth Circuit Court noted in the Sabin oral vaccine case, Davis v . Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 399 F.2d 121, 127: " e can find no Montana decision in point on the issue W of a drug manufacturer's duty t o warn of dangers inherent in i t s product. Privi t y of contract between buyer and s e l l e r as a prerequisite to recovery in an implied warranty action has long been abolished i n t h a t s t a t e in cases involving food, and s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y has been imposed on those who sold i t . I t would seem that the same approach would be adopted by the Montana Supreme Court i n cases involving drugs meant f o r internal use. Faced with the absence of controlling s t a t e precedent, w choose to assume t h a t Montana would follow the majore i t y of other s t a t e s in finding t h a t l i a b i l i t y can attach to the sale of drugs, in either t o r t or warranty, despite lack of privity, and would adopt the views s e t forth below on t h e manufacturer's d u t y t o warn o f dangers i n ' n o n d e f e c t i v e ' b u t p o t e n t i a l l y harmful products. * * * "The c l e a r e s t statement o f t h e law as i t e x i s t s today i s i n our view t h a t s e t f o r t h i n t h e Restatement (Second) o f T o r t s (1965). Relevant t o our case a r e S e c t i o n 402A and comments j and k . * * *" The t r e n d seems t o be t o adopt t h e t h e o r y o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y and i t has now been adopted by a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t a t e s . I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e i n s t a n t case as t o t h e adoption o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y , we f i r s t l o o k t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h a t t h e o r y . W adopt t h e d e f i n i t i o n , as o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have, s e t f o r t h i n 2 Restatee ment o f T o r t s 2d S402A: " ( 1 ) One who s e l l s any product i n a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n unreasonably dangerous t o t h e u s e r o r consumer o r t o h i s p r o p e r t y i s s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r p h y s i c a l harm thereby caused t o t h e u l t i m a t e user o r consumer, o r t o h i s p r o p e r t y , if " ( a ) The s e l l e r i s engaged i n t h e business o f s e l l i n g such a product, and " ( b ) i t i s expected t o and does reach t h e user o r consumer w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l change i n t h e c o n d i t i o n i n which i t i s s o l d . "(2) The r u l e s t a t e d i n Subsection (1) a p p l i e s although " ( a ) t h e s e l l e r has exercised a l l p o s s i b l e care i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and s a l e o f h i s product, and " ( b ) t h e user o r consumer has n o t bought t h e product from o r entered i n t o any c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n w i t h the s e l l e r . " I n Lechuga, I n c . v. Montgomery, 12 A r i z . App. 32, 467 P.2d 256, 261, Judge Jacobson i n a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n discussed t h e reasons f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y t o t h a t case: "It i s apparent from a r e a d i n g o f t h e Restatement, and t h e l e a d i n g cases on t h i s s u b j e c t , t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y was evolved t o p l a c e l i a b i l i t y on t h e party p r i m a r i l y responsible f o r the i n j u r y occurring, t h a t i s , t h e manufacturer o f t h e d e f e c t i v e product. This, as J u s t i c e Traynor s t a t e d i n h i s c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n Escola v. Coca Cola B o t t l i n g Co. o f Fresno, 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944), i s based on reasons o f p u b l i c p o l i c y : " ' I f p u b l i c p o l i c y demands t h a t a manufacturer o f goods be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r q u a l i t y r e g a r d l e s s o f negligence t h e r e i s no reason n o t t o f i x t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y openly. ' 150 P.2dY a t 441. "These pub1 i c pol icy considerations have been variously enumerated as follows: "(1 ) The manufacturer can anticipate some hazards and guard against t h e i r recurrence, which the consume r cannot do. Restatement, supra, comment c. " ( 2 ) The cost of injury may be overwhelming t o the person injured while the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and be distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. Greenman v . Yuba Power Products, Inc. [59 Cal.2d 571 , 27 Cal Rptr 697, 377 P .2d 897 (1962). . . '(3) It i s in the public i n t e r e s t t o discourage the marketing of defective products. Escola v . Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, supra. "(4) I t i s in the public interest to place responsibility for injury upon the manufacturer who was responsible for i t s reaching the market. Greenman v . Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra. "(5) That t h i s responsibility should also be placed upon the r e t a i l e r and wholesaler of the defective product in order that they may a c t as the conduit through which l i a b i l i t y may flow t o reach the manufacturer, where ultimate responsibility 1ies. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. [61 Cal.2d 2561, 37 Cal .Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168 (1964). " (6) That because of the complexity of present day manufacturing processes and t h e i r secretiveness, the a b i l i t y to prove negligent conduct by the injured plaintiff i s almost impossible. Escola v . Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, supra. "(7) That the consumer does not have the a b i l i t y t o investigate f o r himself the soundness of the product. Santor v . A and M Karagheusian, Inc. 44 N.J. 52, 207 A.2d 305 (1965). "(8) That t h i s consumer's vigilance has been lulled by advertising, marketing devices and trademarks. Concurring opinion, Lockwood, J . , Nalbandian v . Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc., 97 Ariz. 280, 399 P.2d 681 (1965). "Inherent in these policy considerations i s not the nature of the transaction by which the consumer obtained possession of the defective product, b u t the character of the defect i t s e l f , that i s , one occurring in the manufacturing process and the unavailability of an adequate remedy on behalf of the injured p l a i n t i f f . " W recognize t h i s Ss a major change i n Montana's t o r t law by way e of judicial decision, b u t as'Chief Justice Vanderbilt of the Nw Jersey e Supreme Court said in State v . Culver, 23 N.J. 495, 129 A.2d 715, 721, c e r t . denied 354 U.S. 925, 77 S.Ct. 1387, 1 L ed 2d 1441: "One of the great virtues of the common law i s i t s dynamic nature that makes i t adaptable t o the requirements of society a t the time of i t s application in court." Issue 2. Whether there was substantial evidence showing negli- gence on the part of the manufacturer, and i f so, was the defect resulting from such negligence a proximate cause of Clarence R . Brandenburger's death? The adoption of the doctrine of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y does not relieve the p l a i n t i f f from the burden of proving his case. Vital to that proof i s the necessity of proving the existence of a defect in the product and that such defect caused the injury complained of. Inasmuch as t h i s i s a "second collision" case, w recognize that e the design defect in the vehicle did not cause the accident. Generally injury to car occupants results not from the immediate accident of one car hitting another, commonly called " f i r s t collision" b u t from the ensuing impact upon persons being tossed around the i n t e r i o r of the car, or as here, being thrown through the roof, or "second collision". While the construc- tion of the vehicle i s not the cause of the accident, i t i s most often the contributing factor in the case of "second collision" injuries. In the recent years courts have held t h a t where the manufacturer's negligence in design causes an unreasonable r i s k to be imposed upon the user of i t s products, the manufacturer should be l i a b l e for the injury caused by i t s f a i l u r e to use reasonable care in design. These injuries are readily forsee- able as an incident t o the normal and expected use of the car. While auto- mobiles are n o t made for the purpose of coll iding with each other, a frequent and inevitable contingency of normal automobile use will result in collisions and injury-producing impacts. In Larsen v . General Motors Corporation, 391 F.2d 495, the court speaking concerning the "second collision" said: " * * * N rational basis exists for limiting recovery o to situations where the defect in design or manufacture was a causative factor of the accident, as the accident and the resulting injury, usually caused by the so-called 'second c o l l i s i o n ' of the passenger with the interior part of the automobile, a l l are forseeable. Where the injuries or enhanced injuries are due t o the manufacturer's f a i l u r e t o use reasonable care t o avoid subjecting the user of i t s products t o an unreasonable r i s k of injury, general negligence principles should be applicable * * *". See too: Ford Motor Company v. Zahn, 265 F.2d 729; Carpini v. Pittsburgh and Meirton Bus Company, 216 F.2d 404. Accordingly the duty of Toyota t o provide a safe roof i s not eliminated simply because the defective roof did not cause the accident. Accepting t h i s case as a "second collision" case, i t must be determined whether there can be l i a b i l i t y f o r the alleged defective construction of the vehicle. Appellants contend, relying on Ford, t h a t respondent Is position i s t h a t appellants owed a duty t o manufacture a "crash proof" vehicle. Not so! The law does not require such an obligation. Greco v . Bucciconi Engineering Co., 407 F.2d 87. I t *i s of' import here t o s e t forth the evidence needed t o prove the defect. Although appellants do n o t d i r e c t l y make the claim t h a t res- pondent had t o introduce d i r e c t evidence t h a t the design of the roof of the Land Cruiser was faulty, i t i s clear that they would have us adopt t h i s standard. However, the better rule i s to permit proof of defect t o be establ i shed by circumstantial evidence and inferences therefrom, as we1 1 a s by d i r e c t evidence. The essential rationale f o r imposing the doctrine of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y in t o r t i s that such imposition affords the consuming public the maximum protection from dangerous defects in manufactured products by requiring the manufacturer t o bear the burden of injuries and losses enhanced by such defects in i t s products. If t h i s be so, i t requires l i t t l e imag- ination to see that i f a s t r i c t r u l e of d i r e c t evidence was required, the supposed benefit of the theory of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y would be l o s t t o the consuming public. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said i n Lindsay v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corp., 460 F.2d 631, 639: "There would be l i t t l e gain t o the consuming public i f the courts would establish a form of recovery w i t h one hand and take i t away w i t h the other by establishing impossible standards of proof. The proof required i n a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y case must be r e a l i s t i c a l l y tailored t o the circumstances which caused the form of action t o be created." Lindsay v . McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corp., 352 F.Supp. 633. W adopt the following standard of proof, as s e t forth by the e Hawaii Supreme Court in Stewart v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., 52 Haw. 71, 470 P.2d 240, 243, as the acceptable type of evidence t o be used by a p l a i n t i f f t o prove a defect in a manufacturer's or d i s t r i b u t o r ' s product, i n a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y case: "The .nature and qua1 i t y of evidence used in products l i a b i l i t y cases to show the defect and the nexus between the defect and accident naturally varies. The most convincing evidence i s an expert's pinpointing the defect and giving his opinion on the precise cause of the accident a f t e r a thorough inspection. If an accident s u f f i ciently destroys the product, or the crucial parts, then an expert's opinion on the probabilities that a defect caused the accident would be helpful. If no such opinion i s possible, as in the present case, the u s e r ' s testimony on what happened i s another method of proving that the product was defective. If the user i s unable to t e s t i f y , as where the accident killed him or incapacitated him, no other witness was present a t the time of the accident, and the product was destroyed, the f a c t of the accident and the probabilities are a l l that remain f o r the party seeking recovery. A t t h i s point the p l a i n t i f f can attempt t o negate the user as the cause and further negate other causes not attributable to the defendant. These kinds of proof introduced a1 one or cumulatively a r e evidence which help establish the presence of a defect as the cause of the damage." Franks v . National Dairy Products Corporation, 414 F.2d 682; See also: Reader v. General Motors Corp., 107 Ariz. 149, 483 P.2d 1388; Brownell v. White Motor Corp. , 260 Ore. 251 , 490 P .2d 184- Prosser, Law of Torts, 4th E d , , g 103. s 16A [41 [el @+ -3 , ' ; Y mi&t.-* 50 Minn.L.Rev. 791; 2 Frumer, Products Liability, . Turning now to the record, we find appellants f a i l e d t o intro- duce expert testimony contradicting that oQ respondent instead of contenting themselves with cross-examination of respondent's witnesses. Hence, there was no expert testimony, indeed no testimony a t a l l , t o offset t h a t introduced by respondent. Respondent's expert witness, Prof. Ralph Challender of the engineering school a t Montana State University, t e s t i f i e d a t length as to two defects in the Land Cruiser manufactured by Toyota; (1) that the vehicle was unstable and had a tendency to r o l l , (2) that the roof was n o t safe. In giving his testimony Prof. Challender compared the Toyota Land Cruiser with the Willys Jeep, the International Scout, Ford Bronco and the British Land Rover. Summarizing his testimony he noted that in comparison t o conventional automobiles, because of the short wheel base of such vehicles, a l l four wheel drive vehicles are less stable in an exposure condition, such as s i t t i n g on a s i d e h i l l , and rounding corners, where the centrifugal force e f f e c t becomes more pronounced making the tendency to t i p greater. H noted that e manufacturers of such vehicles should have anticipated t h i s f a c e t , due t o the type of use contemplated, and advertised accordingly. In assessing the various vehicles compared as t o the structure above waist 1ine, he noted only one other had a f i b e r glass top, the Chev Blazer--but t h a t vehicle has in addition a f i b e r glass l i n e r inside, and the structural parts were sandwiched in between the inner and outer faces. All other vehicles compared had steel tops. Concerning the Toyota Land Cruiser top, Chall ender t e s t i f i e d that because of the method of construction when a force, such as was appl ied during the accident, h i t the roof panel the roof would not tend to crumple, as in the case of a steel roof, b u t would simply blow u p and out, e i t h e r shearing or pulling the r i v e t s through the roof. H further t e s t i f i e d t h a t e a steel top can withstand greater force than f i b e r glass, particularly where there a r e reinforcing members across the roof to absorb the impact energy. The other vehicles compared, except the Chev Blazer, have steel tops with reenforcing structural members in the roof, whereas the Toyota Land Cruiser had no such reenforcement, only a mere f i b e r glass she1 1 . The testimony of Challender was corroborated by witness Donald J , Thiesen, a mechanic hired t o repair the Land Cruiser. H noted that the e upper structures were damaged severely; that the top panel was completely severed from the vehicle; that the sides were crushed from the roll ; and t h a t the r i v e t s that attached the fiber glass top to the steel r a i l upon which the roof s a t , were sheared and some pulled through and remained with the top. H further noted that the bolts used in the Land Cruiser, compared e with American bolts, were softer and seemed to shear off easier. considering t h i s testimony in the l i g h t of the testimony of the eyewitness Bruce Leeson t h a t " i t turned over and h i t the passenger side f i r s t , made a complete turn, and upon approaching a position in which you would refer to as upright the t o p came off of the vehicle as i t was coming up to an upright position, and i t flew u p in the a i r . Silhouetted between the top and the vehicle were two bodies." and the deposition testimony of Mrs. Bundy, another eyewitness, " y d i s t i n c t impression was that i t looked M so much l i k e a c h i l d ' s toy car t h a t was f a l l i n g apart in the a i r , t h a t the roof was coming o f f . " , the jury could well have come t o the conclusion t h a t the roof and superstructure of the Land Cruiser was unreasonably dangerous. The top i t s e l f was submitted into evidence f o r the j u r y ' s inspection. W find there was substantial evidence submitted t o the jury f o r e i t t o find that the Toyota Land Cruiser's defective design proximately contributed to the death of Brandenburger. Issue 3. Whether there was an irregularity in the proceedings which prevented the manufacturer and d i s t r i b u t e r from having a f a i r t r i a l when p l a i n t i f f and defendant Oltz s e t t l e d the matter between themselves. W find no merit to t h i s contention. e Appellants contend t h a t d u r - ing the course of t r i a l a settlement was made between respondent and defendant 01 t z , whereby there was an agreement t h a t the sum of $50,000 would be paid to respondent on behalf of Oltz. Not so! An affidavit was f i l e d by counsel f o r appellants t o t h i s e f f e c t in support of the motion f o r a new trial. Counsel for Oltz appeared and quite competently represented his c l i e n t throughout the e n t i r e t r i a l . In his brief and argument t o t h i s Court he s e t forth the f a c t that no settlement was reached during t r i a l and t h a t i t was not until a f t e r the jury verdict t h a t agreement was reached. Judgment i s a f f i / ~ h % fJ u s t i c e ........................................ Justices Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley Castles dissenting: I respectfully d i s s e n t . l i a b i l i t y rule. I do not disagree with the s t r i c t What I disagree w i t h i s i t s application t o a "second c o l l i s i o n " s i t u a t i o n such as here. the defective top. The defect here under discussion was I t had nothing t o do with the cause of the accident. I f the vehicle had no top, as in a convertible, nothing would have changed as t o t h e causation. Mont - .-, I believe under Ford v . Rupple,/504 P.2d 686, 691, 29 St.Rep. 1081, t h i s Court rejected the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n "second c o l l i s i o n " cases; t h a t i s where the i n i t i a l accident i s not caused by any breach of duty of a manufacturer; b u t i t i s contended, as here, t h a t the damages a r e enhanced by some defect in construction o r design. I would reverse and grant a new t r i a l .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
