## Facts

- Hertz Corporation (Hertz) rented a vehicle to two nuns; the rental agreement stated that the “vehicle” was in good mechanical condition.   
- After the nuns signed the rental agreement, a Hertz representative told one of them, “You have got good tires.”   
- While the nuns were driving the rental car, a tire blew out, causing an accident in which passenger Catherine Lavan, a nun, suffered fatal injuries.   
- The tire was manufactured by Firestone and had pre‑existing impact damage at the time of rental that was not discoverable by ordinary visual inspection.   
- The case was tried against Firestone and Hertz; the jury returned a verdict for Firestone, and the trial court directed a verdict for Hertz.   
- Mary Stang, as personal representative of Lavan’s estate, appealed the directed verdict in favor of Hertz, arguing liability based on (1) express warranty and (2) strict liability in tort.   

## Issues

1. Whether statements in the rental agreement and by Hertz’s agent that the vehicle was in good mechanical condition and had “good tires” created an express warranty covering the condition of the tires in favor of the renter’s passenger.   
2. Whether Hertz, as a commercial lessor of automobiles, could be held strictly liable in tort for injuries to a passenger caused by a defective tire on a rented vehicle, even though Hertz neither manufactured nor discovered the defect.   

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that the rental agreement and the Hertz representative’s statement could constitute an express warranty encompassing the tires, and that the warranty extended to an injured passenger such as Lavan; the directed verdict on the express-warranty theory was improper.   
- The court further held that a commercial car-rental company is subject to strict products liability as a supplier of chattels placed in the stream of commerce; plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence on strict liability to go to the jury.   
- The directed verdict in favor of Hertz was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on the theories of express warranty and strict liability.   

## Legal Principles

- Express warranties arise from affirmations of fact or promises by a seller (or lessor) relating to goods that become part of the basis of the bargain; such warranties are not limited to the immediate purchaser but may extend to foreseeable users or beneficiaries.   
- Statements in a rental agreement that a vehicle is in “good mechanical condition,” coupled with specific assurances such as “you have got good tires,” can be interpreted as more than mere sales “puffing” and may amount to enforceable express warranties.   
- Commercial lessors of products, including automobile rental companies, may be treated like sellers for purposes of strict products liability when they place products into the stream of commerce for the use of others.   
- Strict products liability may apply to lessors even if the defect was not discoverable by reasonable inspection, focusing liability on the enterprise that markets and supplies the defective product rather than on negligence.   

## Conclusion

Stang v. Hertz Corp. expands both express-warranty and strict-liability doctrines to encompass commercial automobile lessors. Assurances in a rental contract and by rental agents can create enforceable warranties benefiting passengers, and rental companies can be strictly liable as suppliers of defective vehicles they place in the stream of commerce.


Stang v. Hertz Corp., 490 P.2d 475 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971)