*2 wаgon collapsed upon of the station EILEY, ENOCH, Before CASTLE inflicting decedent, fatal be- Judges. wagon cause the station did not have with an “X” frame which Judge. ENOCH, Circuit protect rails to a driver side frame impact Evans, personal Plain- volved in side collisions. Plaintiff, Barbara F. Roy incorporated a representative tiff’s amended Estate publication brought reprint rival of a in which a Evans, deceased, this action alleged su- advertises to recov- District Court the United States periority damages frame over of the decedent’s on behalf er dependent “X” frame used minor chil- and four widow ground dren, makers. that his death was argu- against pretrial сonferences, body impacts oral Plain-
After sides. ment, briefs, argues and submission Dis- tiff “X” the defendant’s permitted trict Court dismissed the amended com- plaint the side the automo- ground against collapse each fail- count bile to the decedent when wagon ed to the defend- state claim his station by struck ant could relief another vehicle. Plaintiff does not *3 appeal This followed. assert the “X” caused the de- frame cedent’s path driven into the automobile to be theory Plaintiff’s is that collision the striking prevented or it car a which occurred was foreseeable emer- being path. Nor driven out of that gency omitting by and that side frame рlaintiff does contend that the decedent rails, defendant created an unreasonable injured could not been or in have killed occupants risk of harm to automo- this the 1961 same collision had Chevro- bile it manufactured. wagon designed let a station been with Plaintiff asserts that defendant was perimeter frame. negligеnt designing failing and in to design automobile; test the A is a not under defendant breached warranties his to make automobile accident- that the was of merchantable proof fool-proof; or nor must he render reasonably quality and fit for use as an danger the vehicle “more” where safe automobile; placed that defendant Campo to avoided obvious all. stream of commerce an automobile in a 1950, Scofield, 468, v. 301 N.Y. 95 N.E. dangerous and defective condition 802, Perhaps 2d it 804. would be de equipped it was an with “X” frame lack- require sirable to manufacturers con to ing protection, proxi- side frame thus struct automobiles in which it wоuld be mately causing fatal to the collide, legis safe to but that would be a decedent when the automobile was in- function, aspect judicial lative not an collision, volved in a broadside for which interpretation existing Campo law. strictly plain- the defendant is to liable Scofield, supra, 805. tiff. Plaintiff’s reliance Elliott v. Gen- major question The before us is Corp., Cir., 1961, eral 296 F.2d the nature which an automo 125, Co., and MacPherson v. Buick Motor bile manufacturer owes to users of its 1916, 382, 1050, 217 N.Y. 111 N.E. L.R.A. product. presents an issue of law 1916F, 696, misplaced. Elliott con- for the Court. Union Traction Co. of sharp edged splash shield, cerned a hid- 1919, Berry, 514, Indiana v. 188 Ind. 520- view, placed den from but wherе a me- 521, 737; 655, 657, 121 N.E. 124 N.E. put chanic would have to his hands Chrysler Corporation, D.C., S.D., Kahn v. repair repairing the automobile. While 1963, F.Supp. 677, Tex. 678. automobile, Loraine Elliott extended The defendant it concedes that had a through splash his arm hand and duty to its automobile to be rea- opening, shield which was sonably fit for the for which gain allow а mechanic to entrance hiding it was without defects engine pan oil from beneath the auto- dangerous per- which would make it dangerously sharp mobile. The and de- using sons so it. edge nerves, tendons, fective muscles, severed arteries, permanently Plaintiff does not assert that defend- dis- abling hand, ant’s could have his arm functiоned to MacPherson avoid the collision. Plaintiff involved contends defective a automobile wheel plaintiff prove, that in trial a would had been made another and sold expert subsequently adopted to the manufacturer who failed to in- improvements design by spect plaintiff defendant and it. While the in MacPher- others, riding that the solid steel side rails of son lapsed it was col- frame added because of defective wheel. opinions of rails, from the re- with side cases experts perimeter frames are distinguishable certain on their also
lies are Defendant had a examples. In J. I. “safer” a collision. few note a faсts. We only Indiana, 1964, duty ensure that Sandefur, Inc., to test its Case Co. v. pur- reasonably for its intended necessary fit 519, for the it was N.E.2d auger pose. step of an on the cover hopper. clear the in a farm combine to Bird v. Ford Unlike- the defendants collapsed hidden under him because W.D., N.Y., 1936, Co., D.C., 15 F. Motor supporting brace defeсts: there was no Co., 590; Motor Baxter safety clip, the lumber and screws 456, 409, 1932, 12 P.2d 168 Wash. strength. of insufficient used were 521; v. Hudson Motor Bahlman A.L.R. D.C., E.D., Corp., Leavitt McCloud v. 683, 1939, 290 Mich. N.W. Car F.Supp. specta- Illinois, plaintiff, Mo cited grand- defective tor when the Corporation did not warrant tors *4 watching game a stand in he was which product of the condition which to free be Carpini collapsed him. In v. Pitts- under actually In Bird and caused the accident. Co., Cir., 1954, burgh 3 Bus & Weirton Baxter, which shattered the windshields 404, petcock 216 used to drain the F.2d a cases, plaintiffs in those were and cut the system of a air bus chamber brake expressly represented “shatter ground. the was located too close to Bahlman, two-piece proof.” In the roof The broke off on debris in the street. jagged seam that with a welded of failed. The driver lost control brakes expressly represented plaintiff, the In Motor Co. 8 the bus. to steel roof.” a “seamless be ashtray Cir., 1959, on 265 F.2d the alleged It is not that General defectively jagged the а dashboard had expressly to its automobile warranted edge pas- which inflicted a capable pro- of have side rails or be senger when were the brakes collisions; tecting driver in broadside a suddenly applied. v. Ford Goullon warranty implied from nor can such be Cir., 1930, Motor 44 F.2d the allegations plaintiff’s amended the steering rim of the on a tractor wheel complaint. broke in the hand. driver’s study points au- other and Our of all products cases The involved in all these plaintiff’s in favor of thorities advanced were unfit for their intended use and in nothing position that alters our discloses precisely respect of that were the cause judgment of Dis- conclusion that the the injuries. accidental trict must affirmed. Court be Affirmed. purpose The intended of an auto participation mobile does not include its objects, despite in collisions with Judge KILEY, (dissenting). ability to foresee the manufacturer’s respectfully dissent. possibility may that occur. such collisions that The of the court decides argues, As defendant the defendant also was, duty as it con- General Motors’ may knows that its automobiles be driven cedes, rea- its automobile be water, into bodies of but it is not suggest sonably purpose fit for for which it duty equip ed that defendant a has defects; from hidden and free pontoons. them with notwithstanding that General Motors’ agree plain foreseeability possible of col-
We cannot
with
lisions,
purpose”
of
au-
tiff
that
the defendant had a
the “intended
equip
participa-
all its
with side rail
not include its
automobiles
tomobile does
collisions;
frames,
imposition
a
or that such
tion in such
any requirements
can
of
automobiles bе
be inferred from the mere fact
legis-
defendant’s,
some
its made “more” safe for collisions is a
of
some of
function;
competitors’,
district
are now made
and that
automobiles
lative
properly
complaint
inating
privity
court
dismissed the
essential
in Indiana
of
negligence actions,
for failure
to state
claim
that of J. I. Case
Sandefur, Inc.,
relief could
Co. v.
197 N.E.2d
Supreme
(1964), in which the Indiana
question
whether,
before us is
as-
Court did likewise.
suming
well-pleaded
al-
truth
legations
complaint,
stated,
aptly
in the amended
“it
The court in Greeno
“The
appears beyond
plain-
all doubt”
direction
of the law is clear.” 237
prove
opin-
tiff
direction, my
cаn
no
set
facts
would
at 432. The
Conley Gibson,
greater
ion,
responsibility
entitle
her
relief.
leads to
41, 45-46,
designing, testing
U.S.
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
manufacturers
manufacturing
(1957).
products,
purpose
The amended
with a
counts, charging: negligence
giving
three
reasonable
testing
Chevrolet;
purchasers
of the 1961
harm to
in the use of the
products
My
purposes.
their
intendеd
breach
warranties mer-
view is that
the Indiana courts would
chantability
and fitness for the
opinion today
have the same
same
manufacture;
liability
and strict
issue as that before us.
of the manufacturer for a defective and
dangerous automobile.
knowledge
of common
It is a matter
authorities, non
and federal
that stаte
diversity case;
consequently
legal
governmental agencies,
Indiana law controls. No Indiana case
groups,
as automotive
as well
medical
precisely
has
decided the issue before us.
*5
currently engaged in
producers,
re
are
But a United States District Court in
inspired
hearings
search,
and
discussion
Equipment
Greeno
Co.,
v. Clark
237 F.
predictable rate
appalling annual
(N.D.Ind.1965),
427
and this court
per
45,000
deaths, now more than
of
Dagley Armstrong
in
Co.,
Rubber
344
year,1
reported injuries
hun
in the
and
(7th
1965),
F.2d 245
Cir.
as “Indiana
thousands,
in au
from accidents
dreds of
diversity cases,
courts” in
participated in
in
of
the context
tomobile traffic.
It is
developing Indiana
in
law
breach war
us,
issue
traffic realities that the
before
ranty
products liability
and
cases to meet
me,
decided.
it seems to
must be
changing conditions. In Greeno the court
upon
drew
“available data” and cases
opinion
state
does not
the court
jurisdictions
from other
for the
duty
state
affirmatively
Motors’
what General
mеnt
eliminating
of the
require
rule
theory
rejects plaintiff’s
Gen-
that
is. It
privity
product
ment of
liability
cases.
Motors, foreseeing
possibility of
eral
Dagley,
In
253,
344 F.2d at
an action for
duty
collisions,
to in-
had the
broadside
breach of
warranty,
this court
design
clude
rails in
of the Chev-
side
observed that
concept
the “historical
frame,
rolеt
so as to
reasonable
warranty,”
required privity
of con
against
injury
from
death
tract, was “outdated in
chang
view of
collisions;
inferentially
it
and
* * *
* *
ing policies involved
and
accepts
theory
its
General Motors’
society
interests
are best
design
duty
was to
its automobile
by eliminating
served
requirement
* *
reasonably
fit for the
for which
court
step
took this
as a
made,
it was
without
ren-
hidden defects
sequel
prior
to its
decision in Elliott v.
dering
dangerous
using
persons
it
it
Corporation,
General Motors
tive matter. The United Senate States considering quеstion
now of federal Admin-
standards. The Services up
istration itself set standards has purchase.
automobiles it will There is currently books an abundance of
magazine articles, newspaper con- defending, demning, as as well record
of manufacturers of automobiles in safe-
ty design production. partic- merely ular issue us is a reflection before being
of the broad national issue debated possibility
at this time. But the of fu- legislative adequate
ture standards does necessity presently
not remove the de- ciding whether should should opportunity prove
not have an the al- legations complaint. made in the judgment
I would reverse in favor
of General its affirmative de- II,
fenses to Counts I and its mo- III;
tion to Count dismiss and would re- proceedings.
mand for further UNITED STATES of America ex rel. DeVONEY, Andrew J. Petitioner- Appellant, pro. per. DeVoney, in Andrew J. Clark, Atty. Illinois, William Gen. G. PATE, Warden, Respondent- Frank J. Chicago, Michael, 111., Philip Richard A. *7 Appellee. Rock, Attys. Gen., J. Asst. of counsel. No. 15480. DUFFY, Before KNOCH and
United States Court of Judges. SWYGERT, Circuit Seventh Circuit. April 22, 1966. KNOCH, Judge. petitioner, DeVoney, Andrew J.
an inmate of the Illinois Peniten- State tiary serving where he is a sentence of year imposed one to life after conviction alleged superiority perimeter- heavy of a U-chamiel and box-member side type huge frame over the “weak in the middle” rails with center X-member. ** * X-frame, hut an advertisement Solid steel side rails add- reproduced plaintiff’s protection against body impacts 1959 Oldsmobile ed brief features “all-new Guard-Beam sides.” Frame-” these combines words: “It