On March 16, 1962, Elmore (P) and her husband purchased a 1962 Rambler American station wagon from Mission (D). The car had a standard transmission. It was not equipped with power steering or power brakes. Elmore (P) used the car to commute to work. The car was serviced by Mission (D) after it had been driven about 1,500 miles. The car was lubricated, and the oil and oil filter were changed. Elmore (P) noticed that the car was shimmying when she drove it between 60 and 65 miles per hour. Elmore (D) returned the car for servicing. The Rambler had been driven 2,751 miles before the accident. An accident occurred. Elmore (D) was driving and suffered head injuries and was unable to remember anything about the day of the accident. Mr. Hendley testified that he was following Elmore (D) before the collision, that Elmore (D) was travelling about 45 miles per hour, that she had caught up with the traffic in front of her and had started to pull out as if to overtake the vehicle in front of her, and when Elmore (D) returned to the right hand lane, there was a series of 'sparks underneath the car like something fell. . . . like something in front was dragging. . . . like a big hunk of metal suddenly hitting the ground.' The sparks were 'strong' ones, not like the little spark from a dragging chain. Elmore (D) started 'fishtailing.' As the 'fishtailing' got worse, the automobile went over to the wrong side of the road and struck Waters (P). That the 'fishtailing' continued until the collision, and that the impact hurled Elmore (D) from her vehicle onto the embankment. A gouge mark about 300 feet from the point of impact extended for a distance of some feet. Skid marks continued from the gouge mark for about 164 feet. Snyder, a mechanical engineer and automobile expert, gave his opinion as to the severity of the gouge marks: It gouged hard, was forced into the pavement up to the end of the mark. He did not examine the Rambler and could not tell which particular part had dropped from it, although he mentioned a number of parts that could drop. He further testified that whatever piece of equipment may have come loose was in the forward part of the car. Ausburn, a licensed engineer, examined the vehicles at a wrecking yard, apparently eight days after the accident. The front end of the Rambler was badly damaged. The right front wheel was bent, and the tire was flat. The intermediate rod was torn loose from the idler arm. Many of the parts associated with the steering mechanism were bent and displaced. After the steering mechanism was removed from the Rambler, Ausburn examined the steering box and found in it small metallic particles and particles of a piece of plastic impregnated tape, which was similar to the plastic tape labelling the worm shaft of the steering gear. The drive shaft was not attached in its proper place, but was in the rear of the Rambler station wagon. The drive shaft was buckled. When shown a photograph taken by the highway patrol officer a few moments after the accident, he stated that an object on the ground about 25 feet from the vehicle was 'probably' the drive shaft from the vehicle. Ausburn testified that if a drive shaft fell down while the car was moving, it would dig into the roadway, make sparks, and cause the rear of the car to lift and to swerve or be thrown around; that normal wear and tear or 'anything the driver did' would not cause a drive shaft to fall down in a space of 2,700 miles; that the cause of a drive shaft falling would be either loose fastenings or a metal failure; and that a drive shaft would not ordinarily be expected to become separated from the car in the accident which occurred. Ausburn gave his opinion that the cause of the sparking was 'an undetermined part dropping down and dragging on the highway.' Ausburn testified that the driver of the car would have to exert extra effort in steering the car to overcome the resistance caused by the presence of the tape in the gearbox. After he examined the gearbox, he concluded that there was a defect before the accident, in that a foreign matter was present within the gearbox. He was of the opinion that there was a second defect prior to the accident, namely, the disconnected drive shaft. The trial court granted Ds’ motions for nonsuit. Ps appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.