Spurlin v. General Motors Corp.
528 F.2d 612 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may not grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) if there is substantial evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded people, in the exercise of impartial judgment, might reach different conclusions. A new trial should only be granted if the jury's verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.
Facts:
- General Motors Corporation (GM) designed and manufactured the chassis for a 1965 66-passenger school bus.
- The bus was equipped with a single hydraulic braking system, meaning a single reservoir of brake fluid supplied all four wheels, creating a risk of total brake failure if a leak occurred.
- The bus was equipped only with a parking brake, which was not designed or intended to function as an emergency brake capable of stopping a large, moving vehicle.
- The bus chassis did not include any warning device, such as a gauge or light, to indicate to the driver when the brake fluid level was low.
- GM's owner's manual recommended checking the brake fluid level every 6,000 miles, which for a school bus could be as infrequent as once per year.
- On April 23, 1968, in Morgan County, Alabama, the school bus's brakes failed completely due to a loss of brake fluid, causing a crash.
- The crash resulted in the deaths of two children and injuries to twenty-two others.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of the children involved in the crash filed twenty-two personal injury suits and two wrongful death suits against General Motors Corporation in the U.S. District Court (the trial court).
- The district court consolidated all cases for a single trial on the issue of liability.
- A jury heard the case on the theory of negligent design and returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.
- Following the verdict, General Motors filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The district court granted both of General Motors' motions, setting aside the jury's verdict.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 district court err in granting the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where the plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the defendant negligently designed a product and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Tuttle, J.
Yes. The district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiffs presented substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that General Motors was liable for negligent design. Under the standard from Boeing Co. v. Shipman, a JNOV is improper if there is a conflict in substantial evidence. Here, plaintiffs provided expert testimony that the single hydraulic braking system was 'inherently unsafe' and that safer alternatives, like dual hydraulic systems or air brakes, were technologically feasible and available in 1965. Furthermore, there was substantial evidence on the issue of proximate cause. Even if the school board was negligent in its maintenance, the jury could have found this negligence was foreseeable by GM, particularly because GM's own maintenance manuals recommended dangerously infrequent fluid checks (every 6,000 miles). The court also reversed the alternative grant of a new trial, holding that the verdict was not against the 'great weight of the evidence,' which is the controlling standard. Because the evidence was merely conflicting, the jury's verdict must be respected.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the deference federal courts must accord to a jury's findings of fact under the Seventh Amendment. It clearly distinguishes the standard for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (the 'substantial evidence' test) from the standard for granting a new trial (the 'great weight of the evidence' test), establishing that the former is a more difficult standard for a losing party to meet. The decision solidifies the principle in products liability that a manufacturer's duty includes foreseeing potential negligent maintenance by users, especially when the manufacturer's own instructions could contribute to that negligence. It affirms that even in complex cases with technical expert testimony, the jury's role as the primary fact-finder is paramount.
Unlock the full brief for Spurlin v. General Motors Corp.