Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Glenn L. Martin Co.
224 F. 2d 120, 71 Ohio Law. Abs. 593, 50 A.L.R. 2d 882 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A buyer who inspects a product during its manufacture does not assume the risk of a latent defect or become contributorily negligent unless there is evidence the buyer knew of the specific danger or its inspection increased the risk of harm. Submitting such defenses to a jury without supporting evidence is reversible error.
Facts:
- The Glenn L. Martin Company (Martin), an airplane manufacturer, designed and built the 'Model 202' airplane after World War II, using a new aluminum alloy known as 75ST.
- Northwest Airlines (Northwest) purchased a fleet of 25 Martin 202 airplanes between 1946 and 1948.
- During the manufacturing process, Northwest stationed its own engineers, inspectors, and other personnel at the Martin plant to observe production and recommend changes.
- On August 29, 1948, a Northwest 202 airplane (No. 44), which had flown 1,321 hours, crashed after its left wing tore off during a thunderstorm, killing all passengers and crew.
- Investigation revealed the crash was caused by a fatigue failure in a front wing spar.
- On the same day, an inspection of another 202 (No. 42) revealed that the same wing joint was completely broken and the wing was held on only by the metal 'skin'.
- Subsequent inspections of Northwest's entire 202 fleet revealed that all planes with over 1,200 flight hours, and several with fewer hours, had fatigue cracks in the same critical wing joint.
Procedural Posture:
- Northwest Airlines, Inc. brought a negligence action against The Glenn L. Martin Company in a federal district court.
- The case was tried before a jury for approximately three months.
- The trial court submitted the issues of Martin's negligence and Northwest's affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence to the jury.
- The jury returned general verdicts in favor of the defendant, Martin.
- Northwest Airlines, the plaintiff, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court commit reversible error by submitting the affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence to the jury in the absence of evidence that the buyer knew of the latent defect or that its inspections contributed to the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, Circuit Judge
Yes. The trial court committed reversible error by submitting the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence to the jury. A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on an affirmative defense where there is a complete absence of evidence to support it. For assumption of risk, there was no evidence that Northwest knew of or appreciated the danger in the wing joint; the defect was latent, and Northwest was entitled to rely on Martin's expertise. For contributory negligence, Northwest had no duty to inspect for latent structural defects, and the inspections it chose to undertake did not increase the risk of harm and were not relied upon by Martin. Furthermore, it was error to submit the issue of Northwest's failure to install airborne radar, as uncontradicted evidence showed that satisfactory radar was not commercially available at the time.
Dissenting - McAllister, Circuit Judge
No. The trial court did not err in submitting the questions of assumption of risk and contributory negligence to the jury. The testimony of one of Northwest's own expert witnesses, who stated the wing defect was 'open and obvious to any competent engineer,' was sufficient to create a jury question on assumption of risk. Regarding contributory negligence, there was some, albeit not extensive, evidence that airborne radar was available and could have been of assistance, creating a factual question for the jury to decide whether Northwest exercised due care in failing to install it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of assumption of risk and contributory negligence defenses in product liability cases involving sophisticated commercial buyers. It establishes that a buyer's active monitoring of a manufacturing process does not, by itself, shift the responsibility for latent design or manufacturing defects from the seller. The court reinforces the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to rely on the defendant's performance of its duty of care and is not negligent for failing to discover a latent defect it had no reason to suspect. The ruling also limits negligence claims based on failure to adopt new technology by requiring evidence of the technology's commercial availability and feasibility at the relevant time.
Unlock the full brief for Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Glenn L. Martin Co.