DENNY V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
639 N.Y.S.2d 250 (1995)
NATURE OF THE CASE: The federal court of appeals certified three questions: 'whether the
strict products liability claim and the breach of implied warranty claim are identical,' (2)
'whether, if the claims are different, the strict products liability claim is broader than
the implied warranty claim and encompasses the latter,' and (3) 'whether, if the claims are
different and a strict liability claim may fail while an implied warranty claim succeeds,
the jury's finding of no product defect is reconcilable with its finding of breach of
warranty.'
FACTS: Denny (P) was severely injured when the Ford Bronco II that she was driving rolled
over. P slammed on her brakes in an effort to avoid a deer. P sued Ford (D) asserting
claims for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of
merchantability. P introduced evidence to show that small utility vehicles such as the
Bronco II in particular, present a significantly higher risk of rollover accidents than do
ordinary passenger automobiles. Plaintiffs' evidence also showed that the Bronco II had a
low stability index attributable to its high center of gravity and relatively narrow track
width. The vehicle's shorter wheel base and suspension system were additional factors
contributing to its instability. D argued at trial that the design features were necessary
to the vehicle's off-road capabilities. D's own engineer stated that he would not recommend
the Bronco II to someone whose primary interest was to use it as a passenger car, since the
features of a four-wheel-drive utility vehicle were not helpful for that purpose and the
vehicle's design made it inherently less stable. P introduced a Ford marketing manual which
touted both off road, and on road use as a passenger vehicle. The District Court submitted
both the strict products liability claim and the breach of implied warranty claim, despite
D's objection that the two causes of action were identical. For strict liability the court
told the jury that 'a manufacturer who places a product on the market in a defective
condition is liable for injury which results from use of the product when the product is
used for its intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose.' With respect to the breach of
implied warranty claim, the court told the jury: 'The law implies a warranty by a
manufacturer which places its product on the market that the product is reasonably fit for
the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. If it is, in fact, defective and not
reasonably fit to be used for its intended purpose, the warranty is breached. D got the
verdict on strict liability and P got the verdict for $1.2 million under the implied
warranty claim. D appealed. The court of appeals certified questions.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment