## Facts

- Sam Baxter bought a Model A Ford town sedan from a Ford dealer after being exposed to Ford’s printed statements that the windshield was “non-shatterable” and would not break, fly, or shatter.
- While Baxter drove through Snoqualmie Pass, a pebble struck the windshield, causing glass fragments to fly into his left eye, resulting in loss of the eye and impairment of vision in the right eye.
- Baxter claimed he relied on Ford’s representations and that the windshield did not conform to those representations.
- In an earlier appeal, the court held Ford’s printed materials could support liability despite lack of privity and sent the case back for a jury determination as to Ford.
- On retrial, the jury returned a verdict for Baxter, finding the failure to provide non-shatterable glass was a proximate cause of his injuries and awarding damages.
- Ford sought to introduce expert testimony that the windshield glass used was the best available at the time; the trial court excluded the testimony and entered judgment on the verdict for Baxter.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony that Ford used the “best” or best available windshield glass.
2. Whether proof that Ford used the best available glass could defeat or limit liability based on Ford’s affirmative, factual representations that the glass was non-shatterable.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Baxter.
- The exclusion of “best available” expert testimony was proper because it did not address whether the windshield matched Ford’s factual representations.
- Liability could rest on the falsity of Ford’s material, factual representations and Baxter’s reliance, regardless of Ford’s good faith or the state of the art.

## Legal Principles

- When a party states as true a material fact “susceptible of knowledge,” and another reasonably relies on it to his injury, liability may follow if the representation is false, even if the speaker believed it true and lacked knowledge of falsity.
- A manufacturer’s affirmative, factual advertising representations about product characteristics are not defeated by evidence that the manufacturer used the best available product if the product did not conform to the representation.
- In misrepresentation or warranty-by-representation claims grounded in specific factual assurances, the central question is conformity between representation and product performance, not the manufacturer’s care, intent, or technological limits.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a verdict for an injured buyer where the manufacturer’s factual advertising representation that a windshield was non-shatterable proved false in use; evidence that the manufacturer used the best available glass did not defeat liability, and good faith was immaterial to the claim.


Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 35 P.2d 1090 (Wash. 1934)