## Facts

- Nancy Denny was injured when her Ford Bronco II rolled over after she braked hard to avoid a deer.
- Plaintiffs claimed the Bronco II’s design made it unreasonably prone to rollover due to stability-related characteristics (including a high center of gravity and narrow track width).
- Ford contended the vehicle’s design reflected utility-vehicle features necessary for off-road performance.
- Plaintiffs emphasized Ford marketed the Bronco II to ordinary suburban and city drivers expected to use it primarily on paved roads.
- The case was tried on negligence, strict products liability for defective design, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

## Issues

1. Whether New York strict products liability (design defect) and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability have identical, always coextensive elements.
2. If not identical, whether strict products liability necessarily subsumes the implied warranty claim.
3. Whether a jury may, on the same facts, find for the defendant on strict design-defect liability but for the plaintiff on implied merchantability warranty.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals held strict products liability and implied warranty of merchantability are not identical under New York law.
- The court held strict products liability does not necessarily subsume implied warranty; implied warranty may be broader in some circumstances.
- The court held it is legally possible for a jury to reject a strict design-defect claim yet find a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability on the same facts.
- The court reasoned the split verdict could be reconciled because strict design-defect liability uses a risk–utility framework, while merchantability focuses on whether the product is fit for ordinary, foreseeable use as understood by consumers.

## Legal Principles

- New York strict products liability for design defect applies a risk–utility balancing test focused on whether the product is “not reasonably safe,” including feasibility of a safer design.
- Implied warranty of merchantability under the U.C.C. turns on whether goods are fit for their ordinary purposes, assessed against customary and reasonably foreseeable uses and consumer expectations.
- Because the two doctrines employ different tests and policy aims, a warranty claim may succeed even when the plaintiff does not establish a design defect under the tort risk–utility standard.
- In cases involving marketed “ordinary” use that differs from specialized design purposes, consumer-expectations-based merchantability can yield a different outcome than risk–utility design-defect analysis.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that strict design-defect liability and implied warranty of merchantability are distinct causes of action in New York, and a defendant may prevail on risk–utility strict liability while still being liable if the product is not fit for the ordinary purposes reasonably expected by consumers.


Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995)