Rotche v. Buick Motor Co.
193 N.E. 529, 358 Ill. 507 (1934)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot prove a manufacturer's negligence with evidence of a product's condition discovered long after an accident unless the plaintiff first establishes a proper evidentiary foundation showing that the product's condition remained unchanged from the time of the incident to the time of the examination.
Facts:
- On August 13, 1929, Nathan Rotche purchased a new Buick automobile, manufactured by Buick Motor Company, from the Cicero Buick Sales Company.
- Rotche drove the car for 26 days, covering approximately 600 miles, during which he experienced no trouble with the brakes.
- On September 8, 1929, while driving 30 miles per hour, Rotche applied the foot-brake, causing the car to turn to the right, leave the road, and crash, resulting in serious injuries to Rotche.
- The wrecked automobile was towed to a public garage in Des Plaines and, about two weeks later, was moved to another public garage in Chicago.
- Examinations conducted by various individuals on Rotche's behalf took place between two weeks and several months after the accident.
- These examinations revealed that a clevis connecting a brake cable was missing and that certain cotter pins in the brake mechanism had not been properly spread or clinched.
Procedural Posture:
- Nathan Rotche sued Buick Motor Company and Cicero Buick Sales Company in the superior court of Cook county (trial court).
- A jury returned a verdict for Rotche against both defendants for $20,000.
- Rotche subsequently settled with Cicero Buick Sales Company for $2,500 and dismissed the suit against it.
- The trial court denied Buick Motor Company's post-trial motions and entered a judgment against it for the remaining $17,500.
- Buick Motor Company, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Buick Motor Company petitioned the Supreme Court of Illinois for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 manufacturer liable for alleged negligent construction when the only evidence of a defect is testimony about the vehicle's condition several weeks after an accident, without proof that the condition remained unchanged since the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A manufacturer is not liable for alleged negligent construction under these circumstances. To establish liability, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by competent evidence that the manufacturer was negligent. The mere occurrence of an accident does not create a presumption of negligence. The primary evidence offered by Rotche was testimony regarding the condition of the brake system's cotter pins several weeks after the accident. This evidence is inadmissible without a foundation showing that the car's condition had remained unchanged since the accident. Given that the vehicle was stored in public garages with ample opportunity for tampering, and no witness who saw the car immediately after the crash could testify to the condition of the specific cotter pins, the plaintiff failed to lay this necessary foundation. Conversely, Buick Motor Company provided uncontradicted evidence of multiple inspections at its factory, its distribution center, and by the dealer, all of which found no defects. Therefore, there was a total failure of competent proof on an essential element of the plaintiff's case.
Analysis:
This case affirms the principle from cases like MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. that manufacturers can be liable to end-users for negligent construction, but it critically underscores the plaintiff's evidentiary burden. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of laying a proper foundation for evidence, particularly when there is a significant time lapse between an accident and a subsequent inspection of the product. It establishes that a plaintiff cannot rely on post-accident evidence of a defect without affirmatively proving a continuous chain of custody or otherwise showing the product's condition has not been altered. This ruling protects manufacturers from liability based on speculation or evidence that may have been compromised post-accident.
Unlock the full brief for Rotche v. Buick Motor Co.