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

P was driving his car. D's truck was also on the road. As they approached each other, the tractor's outside left-rear forward wheel became detached. P was able to avoid a collision with this wheel, but shortly thereafter a second wheel also became detached and rolled down the highway striking P's vehicle in the center of the grill. The collision resulted in injuries to P and damages to his automobile. P relied on res ipsa loquitur. D was denied its motion for a directed verdict. D then introduced proof to show that the lug bolts, which held the dual wheels in place, had sheared, causing the wheels to become disengaged. The wheels in question had been inspected on three separate occasions within four days prior to the accident. The driver of the truck had enough experience to detect loose lug bolts in driving and by sight. After P closed its case, D moved for a directed verdict because the only evidence P had was res ipsa loquitur. That was refused. The jury found for P. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in 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.