## Facts

- Howard Guenther, a Sears mechanic, was mounting four new summer tires on a customer’s car when the fourth tire exploded on the tire machine, throwing him several feet and briefly rendering him unconscious.
- Guenther received emergency medical treatment for his injuries.
- Sears service manager Robert W. Small heard the explosion, found Guenther on the floor near the machine, and observed a tire on the machine.
- Small had the tire removed and kept it in his office; he checked its serial numbers.
- The retained tire was later examined by experts for both sides and was produced at trial; the defendant acknowledged that the tire in evidence was its product.
- Guenther testified the exploding tire was a blackwall tire, while Small testified the retained tire was a whitewall tire.
- Plaintiff’s expert was prepared to testify that the tire in evidence had a broken bead and that, given the mounting history, the condition indicated a manufacturing defect.
- The district court directed a verdict for the defendant after plaintiff’s case-in-chief, reasoning that Guenther failed to identify the tire in evidence as the one that injured him because of the blackwall/whitewall discrepancy, and denied a motion for new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s testimony describing the tire as a blackwall constituted a binding judicial admission that foreclosed reliance on contrary evidence identifying the tire in evidence as the tire that exploded.
2. Whether conflicting evidence on product identification and defect justified taking the case from the jury by directing a verdict for the defendant.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the directed verdict and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court erred by treating Guenther’s testimony about the tire’s appearance as a binding admission.
- The court held the identification and defect questions, supported by competing testimony, the physical tire, expert proof, and the manufacturer’s acknowledgment, presented factual disputes for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A litigant’s testimonial statement is not automatically a binding judicial admission that conclusively negates the claim when other evidence supports a contrary finding.
- A party may rely on evidence more favorable than the party’s own testimony, even if that evidence conflicts with the party’s recollection.
- Disagreement between a party and the party’s witnesses on an essential point ordinarily creates a credibility and weight question for the jury, not a basis for a directed verdict.
- On a motion for directed verdict, the court may not resolve material factual conflicts or choose among competing inferences where the record contains sufficient evidence to support a verdict for the nonmoving party.
- Product identification and defect in a negligence-based products case may be shown through circumstantial evidence, including post-incident handling of the product, examination of the physical exhibit, expert testimony, and the manufacturer’s acknowledgment of the product’s origin.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the plaintiff’s mistaken or conflicting description of the tire’s sidewall color did not conclusively defeat product identification where other evidence supported that the tire in court was the one that exploded; because material factual disputes existed, the case had to be submitted to the jury rather than resolved by directed verdict.


Guenther v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 406 F.2d 1315 (3d Cir. 1969)