Ione Jenkins v. General Motors Corporation
446 F.2d 377 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When there is a substantial conflict in expert testimony regarding the cause of an accident in a negligence or products liability case, the issue of causation is a question for the jury, which is entitled to make reasonable inferences from the evidence presented, even if some speculation is required.
Facts:
- On April 15, 1962, Ione Jenkins, age 16, was a passenger in a two-month-old 1962 Corvair with about 2,200 miles on it, driven by Billy Mixon, also 16.
- While traveling on a straight and level road, the car suddenly veered to the left and became uncontrollable.
- Mixon attempted to steer right and apply the brakes, but the brake pedal went to the floor with no effect; Mixon exclaimed, 'I have lost my steering.'
- The vehicle crashed into a concrete culvert and overturned, causing Jenkins to become permanently paralyzed.
- An investigation of the accident scene revealed no evidence of excessive speed, use of alcohol, or improper driving.
- Jenkins's theory was that a nut on a bolt in the left rear suspension system was improperly tightened at the General Motors factory, eventually worked loose, and fell off.
- This failure allegedly caused the suspension to collapse, leading to the loss of steering control and a failure of the brake system.
Procedural Posture:
- Ione Jenkins sued General Motors Corporation in federal district court, alleging negligent manufacturing and inspection.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for Jenkins and awarded her $425,000 in damages.
- The district court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- General Motors moved for a directed verdict and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), both of which the district court denied.
- General Motors (appellant) appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Jenkins as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plaintiff's evidence, consisting primarily of expert testimony that a manufacturing defect caused an accident, sufficient to create a jury question when the defendant manufacturer presents conflicting expert testimony and an alternative theory of causation?
Opinions:
Majority - Ingraham, J.
Yes. A plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to create a jury question even when a defendant presents conflicting expert testimony. When there is a 'battle of experts,' the trial court does not err in submitting the case to the jury. On motions for a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), the court must view all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Here, the jury was presented with competing theories from experts for both Jenkins and General Motors, and it was the jury's function to weigh the conflicting evidence, assess witness credibility, and make reasonable inferences. The jury was not bound to accept the testimony of the defendant's experts, and it was authorized to conclude that the defect caused the accident, even if some speculation was involved.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental role of the jury as the trier of fact in products liability litigation, particularly in cases that turn on complex technical evidence. The court's holding makes it more difficult for defendants to win cases before they reach a jury by simply presenting conflicting expert testimony. The decision affirms that as long as a plaintiff presents a plausible, expert-supported theory of causation, the case should be decided by a jury, which is empowered to resolve the 'battle of the experts.' This precedent strengthens the position of plaintiffs in defect cases by ensuring their claims will be heard by a jury, even against a well-resourced defendant with its own panel of experts.
