## Facts

- Marvin D. Zahn rode as a front-seat passenger in a 1956 Ford driven by Clarence Dailey in Minnesota.
- While traveling about 45–50 mph, Zahn dropped a lighted cigarette and bent down to retrieve it.
- Dailey braked suddenly and forcefully to avoid an unidentified car entering from a crossroad, throwing Zahn forward into the dashboard.
- Zahn’s right eye struck a sharp, jagged metal projection associated with the dashboard ashtray area.
- Zahn immediately experienced severe eye injury; medical treatment revealed a penetrating laceration across the cornea, and he ultimately lost the eye.
- Zahn alleged the ashtray had a dangerous jagged projection created during manufacturing (attributed to a dull cutting die) and that Ford negligently allowed the defect to leave the factory.
- Evidence showed Ford used a sampling method for ashtray inspection and did not inspect every ashtray.
- A jury awarded Zahn $26,350 for his injury.
- The district court denied Ford’s motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence under Minnesota negligence law was sufficient to submit Zahn’s claims to the jury and to support the verdict, making denial of Ford’s directed-verdict and JNOV motions proper.
2. Whether a jury could reasonably find Ford negligent in manufacturing and inspecting the ashtray and find the resulting type of harm foreseeable.
3. Whether the defect and Ford’s negligence could be found a proximate cause of the injury despite the sudden braking to avoid another vehicle.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Zahn.
- The court held the evidence permitted reasonable jurors to find a defectively sharp ashtray projection and negligent manufacture and/or inspection.
- The court rejected Ford’s argument that the loss of an eye was outside foreseeable risk as a matter of law; foreseeability and reasonableness were for the jury on this record.
- The court held the sudden stop to avoid traffic did not require a finding of superseding cause; proximate cause was a jury question supported by the evidence.
- The district court properly denied Ford’s directed-verdict and JNOV motions.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a directed verdict or JNOV denial, disputed facts and reasonable inferences are taken in the light most favorable to the verdict winner.
- Negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause are ordinarily jury questions and become questions of law only when reasonable jurors could not differ.
- In negligence, a defendant need not foresee the precise manner or extent of injury; it is enough that the general type of harm falls within the risks created by the conduct.
- In automotive-use contexts, sudden stops and evasive braking are ordinary incidents of travel and may be treated as foreseeable events in evaluating causation.
- Evidence that a manufacturer relied on sampling inspections, rather than inspecting every unit, may support a finding of unreasonable care when a dangerous defect reaches consumers.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a negligence verdict against an automobile manufacturer where evidence of a sharp dashboard ashtray projection, combined with sampling-only inspection practices and an injury occurring during an ordinary traffic emergency stop, provided a sufficient basis for jurors to find breach of reasonable care and proximate causation.


Ford Motor Co. v. Zahn, 265 F.2d 729 (8th Cir. 1959)