From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roy Matson Truck Lines v. Michelin Tire Corp.

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mar 16, 1979
277 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 1979)

Summary

holding trial court, sitting without a jury, is sole judge of witness credibility and may accept all or only part of any witness's testimony

Summary of this case from State v. Stotts

Opinion

No. 48389.

March 16, 1979.

Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, Leslie Anderson, J. (retired).

Faegre Benson, Martin N. Burke and John H. Hinderaker, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Messerli, Roe, Balogh Kramer, R. Thomas Roe, and David R. Kracum, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Heard by SHERAN, C.J., and SCOTT and WAHL, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.


Plaintiff brought suit under the theory of strict liability for damages it suffered when a tire on one of its trucks blew out. The Hennepin County District Court, sitting without a jury, found that it was more probable that the tire in question was defective than that plaintiff's driver had misused it by under inflating it and granted judgment for plaintiff. We affirm.

Plaintiff, a trucking firm, purchased the tire in question in 1968 and mounted the tire on one of its trucks in 1971. On July 18, 1972, the tire blew out causing damages totalling $15,252.96. All three experts who testified at trial agreed that the blowout was not the result of normal use and that there was no evidence that a sharp object had injured the tire. Plaintiff's expert claimed the blowout was caused by a bonding defect in the tire. Defendant's experts disagreed and claimed the blowout was caused by misuse of the tire, i. e., not checking the air pressure daily with a tire gauge and using a tube one size smaller than the tire.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous. Rule 52, Rules of Civil Procedure. We will reverse a trial court's findings only if, on a review of the entire record, we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Trust Known as Great Iron Ore Properties, 308 Minn. 221, 225, 243 N.W.2d 302, 305 (1976); In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94, 96, 198 N.W.2d 260, 261 (1972).

We find no error in the trial court's findings. The issue before the trial court was whether the blowout was caused by a defect in the tire or misuse of the tire. The resolution of this issue depended on which witnesses the trial court believed. The trial court, sitting without a jury, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and may accept all or only part of any witness' testimony. See, State v. Poganski, 257 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 1977); Seidl v. Trollhaugen, 305 Minn. 506, 232 N.W.2d 236 (1975); State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 193 N.W.2d 802 (1972). The trial court did not err in relying on the testimony of plaintiff's expert. This testimony was supported by the physical evidence as well as the testimony of the truck driver and plaintiff's secretary-treasurer who checked the tires of all plaintiff's trucks on a weekly basis.

Affirmed.

OTIS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Roy Matson Truck Lines v. Michelin Tire Corp.

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mar 16, 1979
277 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 1979)

holding trial court, sitting without a jury, is sole judge of witness credibility and may accept all or only part of any witness's testimony

Summary of this case from State v. Stotts

holding trial court, sitting without a jury, is sole judge of witness credibility and may accept all or only part of any witness's testimony

Summary of this case from Bartlett v. Commissioner of Public Safety

noting the trial court, when sitting without a jury, is the sole judge of witness credibility and may accept all or only part of a witness' testimony

Summary of this case from Lee v. Lee
Case details for

Roy Matson Truck Lines v. Michelin Tire Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ROY MATSON TRUCK LINES, INC., Respondent, v. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Mar 16, 1979

Citations

277 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 1979)

Citing Cases

Matter of Welfare of Children of C.E.C

But that argument is unpersuasive because it fails to recognize the role that the district court's…

Bauer v. Commissioner of Public Safety

In a court trial, the district court is the sole judge of witness credibility and may accept any or all of a…