Facts
- Chester M. Vandermark purchased a new Ford automobile from an authorized Ford dealer, Lorimer Diesel Engine Company, doing business as Maywood Bell Ford.
- About six weeks later, while driving on a freeway, Vandermark lost control; the car left the roadway and struck a light post.
- Vandermark and his passenger, Mary Tresham, suffered serious injuries.
- Before the crash, Vandermark drove the car about 1,500 miles and reported one earlier incident in which braking caused the car to pull sharply to the right; he testified he mentioned it during routine servicing, though dealer records did not reflect the complaint.
- Plaintiffs sued Ford (manufacturer) and the dealer for negligence and breach of warranty, seeking recovery for injuries allegedly caused by a brake defect.
- Plaintiffs offered expert testimony that failure of a piston in the master brake cylinder caused the brakes to apply themselves, producing loss of control; the trial court struck the testimony and rejected the related offer of proof.
Issues
- Whether an automobile manufacturer is strictly liable in tort for injuries caused by a defect in a new car placed on the market for use without inspection, even if final inspection and servicing are performed by an authorized dealer.
- Whether a retail dealer in the distribution chain is strictly liable in tort for personal injuries caused by defects in a new car it sells, notwithstanding warranty limitations or lack of proven negligence.
- Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of defect and causation to avoid nonsuit and a directed verdict on strict-liability/warranty theories.
Decision
- The court held Ford could be strictly liable in tort for injuries caused by a defect in a new automobile placed on the market for use without inspection.
- The court held the retail dealer could also be strictly liable in tort as part of the producing and marketing enterprise; contractual warranty limitations did not bar strict tort recovery for personal injury.
- The court ruled plaintiffs’ evidence was sufficient for a jury to infer a brake defect that existed when the product left defendants’ control; the trial court erred in striking the expert evidence and in removing strict-liability/warranty theories from the jury.
- The judgment for the dealer on negligence was affirmed; the judgment was otherwise reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Principles
- A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when it places a product on the market, knowing it will be used without inspection for defects, and a defect causes injury, even if the manufacturer exercised all possible care.
- A manufacturer cannot avoid strict liability by assigning final inspection, adjustment, or servicing responsibilities to authorized dealers.
- Retail dealers engaged in distributing goods to the public may be strictly liable in tort for injuries caused by defects in products they sell as part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise.
- Contractual disclaimers or warranty limitations do not negate strict tort liability for personal injuries caused by defective products.
- A plaintiff may reach the jury on strict liability by presenting evidence from which defect and causation may reasonably be inferred; proof of dealer negligence is not required for strict liability.
Conclusion
The court recognized strict products liability for injuries caused by a defective new automobile against both the manufacturer and the authorized retail dealer, reversed trial rulings that removed strict-liability/warranty theories from the jury, and left undisturbed the defense verdict on the dealer’s negligence.