## Facts

- Charles Moulton bought a 1969 Ford LTD from Hull-Dobbs, a Ford dealer in Knoxville, and took delivery on April 30, 1969.
- On July 5, 1970, while driving on Interstate 40, the car allegedly suddenly veered right, left the roadway, crossed a guardrail, and fell to a street below.
- Moulton alleged the crash resulted from a defect in the steering mechanism and that he suffered serious injuries.
- Pauline Moulton asserted a derivative claim for loss of consortium.
- On May 13, 1971, the Moultons sued Ford Motor Company and Hull-Dobbs seeking damages and alleging negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, tortious misrepresentation based on public advertising, and strict liability in tort.
- The sales/warranty materials included a manufacturer express warranty limited to one year or 12,000 miles and language disclaiming implied warranties.

## Issues

1. Whether claims pleaded as negligence, strict liability in tort, and tortious misrepresentation for personal injuries were barred by Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations when filed more than one year after the accident.
2. Whether the complaint stated viable breach-of-warranty claims against the manufacturer and dealer given the express warranty’s time limits and disclaimer language.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the Court of Appeals on the limitations ruling and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the tort-based counts.
- The court held the negligence, strict liability, and tortious misrepresentation claims were time-barred because the one-year limitations period began on the accident date (July 5, 1970) and suit was filed after one year (May 13, 1971).
- The court left undisturbed the lower courts’ dismissal of the breach-of-warranty counts, denying the plaintiffs’ request for further review on those issues.
- Result: all claims were dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions runs from the date the injury occurs, and accrual is not delayed merely because a defect may be discovered later.
- For limitations purposes, courts look to the substance of the action; claims seeking recovery for bodily injury are governed by the personal-injury limitations period even when pleaded under different tort labels (negligence, strict liability, or misrepresentation).
- Recasting a personal-injury products claim as strict liability in tort or tortious misrepresentation does not extend the time to sue when the damages sought are for injuries to the person.
- When appellate review is limited to issues accepted on certiorari, unreviewed holdings (including warranty dismissals) remain in effect.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court treated the suit as a personal-injury action and held that tort-based theories arising from an allegedly defective automobile accrue at the accident; because the complaint was filed more than one year after the crash, those claims were barred, and the remaining warranty theories were also dismissed.


Ford Motor Co. v. Moulton, 511 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. 1974)