## Facts

- Morton Friedman and his family were occupants of a 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado manufactured by General Motors (GM) and purchased about 17 months earlier from a dealership.
- At a gasoline station, Friedman stopped, turned off the ignition, and then attempted to restart the car to pull forward to another pump.
- Plaintiffs alleged the engine started even though the transmission was in Drive, causing the car to surge forward uncontrollably, collide with another car and fixed objects, and injure all occupants.
- After the crash, the vehicle’s front end was heavily damaged and the transmission linkages were jammed, preventing shifting into Neutral, Reverse, or Park.
- Plaintiffs presented testimony that the vehicle had always been started in Park before the incident, giving them no reason to detect a defect in the neutral safety (neutral start) system.
- Plaintiffs introduced evidence that the gear indicator and transmission had appeared to correspond in normal operation, supporting an inference that the post-accident Drive indication reflected the actual transmission position at start-up.
- Plaintiffs relied on eyewitness and post-accident testing evidence suggesting the engine could start while the transmission was in Drive, consistent with a misadjusted or malconnected neutral safety switch or linkage.
- Plaintiffs alleged defective mechanisms and misrepresentations that the vehicle could not be started in Drive.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence, viewed most favorably to them, to permit a reasonable jury to find the vehicle was defective.
2. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that any defect existed when the vehicle left GM’s control.
3. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that the defect was the direct and proximate cause of the accident and injuries, such that a directed verdict for GM was improper.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s reversal of the directed verdict for GM.
- The court held plaintiffs introduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case that the vehicle was defective, that the defect existed when it left the manufacturer, and that the defect proximately caused the injuries.
- The court reiterated that a defect existing when a product left the manufacturer may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
- Applying the directed-verdict standard, the court concluded reasonable minds could differ, requiring submission of the case to the jury.
- A dissent would have found the evidence too speculative to attribute the condition to a manufacturing defect at the time of sale.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturing defect existing when a product leaves the manufacturer may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
- Direct proof of the precise mechanical flaw is not required if the evidence, by a preponderance, supports an inference that a defect caused the accident rather than other possibilities; plaintiffs need not eliminate every alternative cause.
- On a motion for directed verdict, evidence must be construed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party; if reasonable minds could reach different conclusions on defect, origin, or causation, the case must go to the jury.
- In product-defect claims against a manufacturer, plaintiffs must present evidence of defect, existence of the defect at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control, and proximate causation of injury.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs’ circumstantial proof of abnormal vehicle behavior, consistency of the gear indicator with transmission position, lack of prior opportunity to discover the condition, and evidence supporting an original adjustment condition was sufficient to allow a jury to decide whether a manufacturing defect in the neutral safety starting system existed at sale and caused the accident, making a directed verdict for the manufacturer improper.


Friedman v. Gen. Motors Corp., 43 Ohio St. 2d 209, 331 N.E.2d 702 (1975)