## Facts

- Ford manufactured and assembled an automobile sold as new.
- The car was parked at the edge of Stansbury Avenue in Los Angeles County, where there were no sidewalks.
- The vehicle had a pointed radiator ornament about 9 3/4 inches long, mounted at the front center and protruding forward.
- Six-year-old Charles Terrance Hatch walked toward the front of the parked car, collided with it, and the ornament pierced his left eye, causing loss of the eye.
- The complaint alleged Ford negligently adopted a dangerous ornament design creating an unreasonable risk of piercing injury upon contact.
- A separate theory alleged Ford violated California Vehicle Code provisions restricting sale of new cars with protruding ornaments.

## Issues

1. Whether an automobile manufacturer owes a negligence duty to design a parked vehicle to be safe for pedestrians who collide with it, based on the presence of a pointed radiator ornament.
2. Whether alleged violation of California Vehicle Code provisions regulating protruding ornaments stated a negligence per se claim against the manufacturer.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal after demurrer was sustained and plaintiffs declined to amend.
- The court held Ford owed no duty to design the vehicle to be safe to collide with while parked; the negligence theory therefore failed to state a cause of action.
- The court held the Vehicle Code provisions cited did not create tort liability against the manufacturer on these facts and did not support negligence per se.
- The court agreed the pleading was uncertain and substantively insufficient, making dismissal proper after failure to amend.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires a duty of reasonable care tied to risks reasonably foreseeable within the scope of a product’s intended or normal use.
- A manufacturer is not an insurer against all injuries from atypical contact with a stationary, properly functioning product.
- Statutory safety provisions support negligence per se only when the statute is construed to impose a relevant duty and to protect against the type of harm suffered; courts will not extend statutory tort liability beyond apparent legislative intent.
- When a demurrer is sustained and the plaintiff elects not to amend, dismissal may be entered and will be affirmed if the complaint fails to state a claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that the manufacturer had no negligence duty to make a parked automobile harmless to a pedestrian who runs into it and that the cited Vehicle Code ornament restrictions did not impose tort liability on the manufacturer in these circumstances, so dismissal after demurrer was properly affirmed.


Hatch v. Ford Motor Co., 163 Cal. App. 2d 393, 329 P.2d 605 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)