## Facts

- James D. Phipps, a service-department employee at an auto dealership, was test-driving a 1972 Pontiac delivered for servicing when it left the highway and struck a tree.
- Phipps alleged the accelerator stuck without warning, causing sudden acceleration and loss of control.
- The alleged malfunction was attributed to latent defects in the accelerator mechanism, carburetor components, and motor mounts.
- Phipps and his wife sued the manufacturer in federal district court, asserting negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and strict liability in tort; Mrs. Phipps also sought loss of consortium under parallel theories.
- The manufacturer moved to dismiss the strict-liability counts and the consortium claim premised on breach of warranty.
- The federal court certified to Maryland’s highest court questions of Maryland law on strict products liability and consortium damages under warranty.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland recognizes a cause of action for strict products liability in tort for a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A).
2. Whether loss of consortium damages may be recovered on a breach-of-warranty theory under Maryland’s Uniform Commercial Code when one spouse suffers personal injury.

## Decision

- The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A and held that Maryland recognizes strict products liability in tort.
- The court held that loss of consortium may be recovered on a breach-of-warranty theory under Maryland’s UCC where the underlying harm is a personal injury to a spouse.
- The certified questions were answered in favor of the plaintiffs, and the matter was returned to federal court for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A commercial seller is strictly liable for physical harm caused by a product sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, if the product reaches the user without substantial change and the defect proximately causes the injury.
- Strict liability focuses on the condition of the product rather than the manufacturer’s fault and does not require proof of negligence.
- Strict liability in tort and UCC warranty claims are distinct; warranty rules may involve contract-based limitations (including privity, notice, and disclaimers), while strict tort liability is not governed by those contractual limitations.
- Loss of consortium is a personal injury to the marital relationship that can fall within the UCC’s personal-injury warranty protections, permitting consortium damages on a warranty theory tied to a spouse’s personal injury.

## Conclusion

The court made Maryland a strict-products-liability jurisdiction by adopting § 402A and also permitted a spouse to seek loss of consortium damages through a UCC breach-of-warranty claim when the other spouse suffers product-caused personal injury.


Phipps v. Gen. Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 363 A.2d 955 (Md. 1976)