## Facts

- Wanda Ringley bought a new Volkswagen from Kelly Vance Motors with a 24-month warranty against manufacturing defects.
- Soon after purchase, the car repeatedly “pulled to the right” when braking; Ringley returned it to the dealer multiple times and was told it had been repaired.
- About a month after purchase, Ringley again complained that the brakes “grab and pull to one side”; she retrieved the car after service.
- Eight days later, while passing on a wet road, Ringley saw pooled water, applied the brakes, and testified the right-front wheel “grabbed,” sending the car into a spin and into a telephone pole, causing severe injuries and property damage.
- Plaintiff’s expert proof indicated the right-front brake drum was “out of round” beyond factory specifications, described as a manufacturing defect that could cause the vehicle to pull right under braking.
- Defendants presented evidence of other potential causes for pulling or skidding, including dirt or water in brake linings, improper brake adjustment, improper tire pressure, and improper alignment.
- A jury found for Ringley on strict products liability against the dealer, manufacturer, importer, and distributor, and awarded the dealer joint and several indemnity against the manufacturer-side defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show a manufacturing defect was the probable cause of the accident, permitting submission to the jury under strict products liability.
2. Whether the manufacturer, importer, and distributor could be held liable to the dealer for indemnity if they were not liable to Ringley.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment against the manufacturer, importer, and distributor and directed dismissal of Ringley’s claims against them.
- The court held Ringley did not present sufficient evidence that the alleged defect was the probable cause of the accident; at most, it showed a possible cause amid unexcluded alternatives.
- The court ordered the indemnity judgment in favor of the dealer against the manufacturer-side defendants set aside.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability requires proof of causation; it does not eliminate the plaintiff’s burden to show the defect was a substantial factor in producing the injury.
- To reach a jury, evidence must support a reasonable inference that the defect was the probable (more likely than not) cause, not merely a speculative possibility.
- Circumstantial evidence may prove defect and causation, but it must exclude conjecture where multiple plausible alternative causes remain.
- Indemnity premised on primary liability cannot stand when the alleged primary tortfeasors are not liable to the injured plaintiff.

## Conclusion

The court rejected strict-liability recovery where the plaintiff proved a manufacturing defect that could have caused the accident but failed to show it probably did so, and it vacated the dealer’s indemnity award because the manufacturer-side defendants had no underlying liability to the plaintiff.


Midwestern V.W. Corp. v. Ringley, 503 S.W.2d 745 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973)