## Facts

- C. L. Pouncey owned a used 1966 Ford automobile purchased secondhand about six months before the accident, with roughly 62,000 miles.
- While adding antifreeze with the hood open, Pouncey accelerated the engine; a radiator fan blade fractured, cut a water hose, and struck him in the face, causing permanent facial disfigurement.
- Pouncey sued Ford Motor Company, alleging a defective radiator fan and negligence in producing or marketing the vehicle with that component.
- Pouncey’s metallurgist testified the failed blade contained an unusually high number of inclusions in the steel, creating stress concentrations that caused premature fatigue failure.
- Ford’s experts disputed that the inclusion level indicated a defect and offered alternative causes (e.g., bent blades, imbalance, prior collision damage, or handling/mounting effects).
- Evidence of Ford’s testing and quality-control practices largely concerned procedures current near trial rather than those used when the 1966 fan was manufactured.
- A jury awarded Pouncey $15,000; the district court denied Ford’s motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the federal sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, the proof permitted submission to the jury on defect, negligence, and causation.
2. Whether Ford could be held liable under Alabama law as an apparent manufacturer for a defective component made by a supplier and sold as part of Ford’s finished product.
3. Whether challenged evidentiary rulings or jury instructions required reversal or a new trial.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Pouncey.
- The evidence, including plaintiff’s metallurgical testimony identifying a specific physical defect and explaining fatigue failure, was sufficient for reasonable jurors to find defect and causation.
- Conflicting expert opinions presented a jury question and did not justify judgment for Ford as a matter of law.
- Alabama law permitted liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 400 where Ford marketed the finished product as its own, allowing responsibility for a supplier-caused defect.
- Alleged instructional and evidentiary errors did not amount to reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- A case must go to the jury when, viewing the evidence favorably to the nonmovant, reasonable and fair-minded jurors could reach different conclusions (federal directed verdict/JNOV standard).
- In a products case governed by Alabama negligence principles, proof of a product defect plus proximate causation can permit an inference of negligent manufacture or design without pinpointing the precise internal manufacturing act.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 400, one who puts out a product as its own may be subject to the same liability as the actual manufacturer for defects attributable to another’s manufacture.
- Conflicts in qualified expert testimony about defect and causation are for the jury when supported by competent evidence.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit left intact the jury’s verdict because the plaintiff presented sufficient expert and physical evidence for jurors to find that a defect in the radiator fan blade caused the injury, and Alabama law allowed Ford to be treated as an apparent manufacturer responsible for a defective supplier component sold as part of Ford’s automobile.


Pouncey v. Ford Motor Co., 464 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1972)