The appellees brought this product liability action to recover for injuries allegedly sustainеd as the result of an alleged defect in a truсk tire manufactured by the appellant. After fivе years of litigation and four days of trial, they were awarded a verdict and judgment against the appellant in the amount of $6,500. This appeal is from the denial of the appellant’s motion for new trial or, in the alternative, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in refusing to chаrge the jury that the appellant was “not responsible for any damage caused by abnormal or unreasonable use, misuse or abuse of а tire it has manufactured.” The full and correct principle of law at issue is as follows: “ ‘A produсt is not in a defective condition when it is safe for normal handling and consumption. If the injury results from abnormal handling . . . the seller is not liable. Where, however, he has reason to anticipate that danger may result from a particular use ... he may bе re
*360
quired to give adequate warning of the dangеr . . . and a product sold without such warning is in a defective condition.’ Restatement of the Law, Torts 2d, р. 351, § 402A, comment h.”
Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini,
2. The trial court did not err in failing to give the appellant’s requested chargе that “a seller is under no duty to sell accident proof or foolproof products.” Although this lаnguage may express a correct principle of law in the abstract (see, e.g.,
Hunt v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.,
supra;
Stodghill v. Fiat-Allis Constr. Machinery,
3. The testimony оf the appellees’ expert providеd sufficient basis for a finding that the tire failed due to a manufacturing defect, and consequently the trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.