
    No. 747
    BRECK v. ROLLA WAY MOTOR CO.
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.
    No. 1690.
    Decided June 7, 1926
    714. LIABILITY — Where an accident is caused by sudden detachment of the steering wheel, and theories are put forth by each party, either of which may prove likely; but the record does not tend to show liability on part of defendant, a judgment directing a verdict in defendant’s favor will be affirmed.
    Attorneys — Johnson, Johnson & Farber for Breck; Fraser, Hiett, Wall & Effler for Company; all of Toledo.
   RICHARDS, J.

The “Lokwell Wheel” was manufactured by the Rollaway Motor Co. and Theodore Breck had one installed in hsi machine about Oct. 1, 1922. On Nov. 18, 1926, while driving around a curve in the road at a moderate rate of speed, the steering wheel suddenly came off the steering post, the ear left the road, and Breck was seriously injured.

Upon trial in the Lucas Common Pleas, Breck sought to recover damages for his injuries and the court directed a verdict in favor of the Motor Co. Error was prosecuted, Breck claiming that the accident occurred because of an inherent defect in the wheel which caused a misfit on the post resulting in the wheel suddenly coming off; and that it is liable for damages resulting from the defective device. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The testimony of the mechanic who installed the wheel was that the work was carefully done and inspected; and that the wheel fitted tight.
2. The only question is whether the wheel became detached by reason of its negligent construction by the Motor Co.
8. Nothing in the record shows what caused the wheel to become detached from the s:eering post; and there is no evidence tending to show that the Motor Co. had knowledge of any defect in the wheel.
4. It has been suggested on one side that the wheel may have been detached weeks before the accident; and on the other »ide that it may have been detached because of the misfit.
5. One theory is as good as another; but in any event the record falls short of establishing the liability of the Company.

Judgment therefore affirmed.  