## Facts

- Albert J. Wasik was injured when his car was rear-ended in Rutland, Vermont by a Ford station wagon driven by Robert W. Borg.
- Wasik sued Borg in federal court on diversity grounds for personal injury and property damage.
- Borg denied negligence, asserting the station wagon suddenly accelerated because its throttle cable entered a “runaway condition” due to a dangerous design or manufacturing defect.
- Borg impleaded Ford Motor Company under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14, seeking to shift responsibility to Ford based on the alleged defect.
- Ford denied defect and asserted, among other defenses, that Borg was contributorily negligent.
- Ford participated fully at trial, including cross-examining witnesses, and was treated as a party facing direct exposure for the plaintiff’s damages.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding Borg not negligent and finding Ford liable for $8,700.

## Issues

1. Whether Vermont law permitted an injured motorist to recover from an automobile manufacturer for an alleged design or manufacturing defect despite lack of contractual privity.
2. Whether a third-party defendant manufacturer, impleaded by the driver-defendant, could be held liable in effect for the plaintiff’s damages when the case was tried on that theory.
3. Whether the jury instructions and the evidence of defect and causation were sufficient to support the verdict against the manufacturer.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment against Ford Motor Company.
- The court concluded Vermont law would allow manufacturer liability for an unreasonably dangerous defective condition causing injury, without a privity requirement.
- The court held it was not improper, given how the case was tried, for the verdict to place liability on Ford while exonerating Borg.
- The court found the instructions, read as a whole, adequately submitted defect and causation, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the alleged throttle defect caused the collision.

## Legal Principles

- In a diversity case, a federal court may predict that state law recognizes manufacturer liability for defective products causing personal injury even without privity, consistent with modern products-liability doctrine.
- Liability may be imposed where a product defect creates an unreasonably dangerous condition and is a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury.
- Rule 14 third-party practice may result in a judgment effectively awarding the plaintiff damages from an impleaded manufacturer when the manufacturer has notice, a full opportunity to defend, and is treated as an actual adversary on liability.
- Appellate review of jury instructions considers the charge as a whole; a verdict will stand where the legal standards and causation requirements were fairly presented and supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a verdict that absolved the driver and held the manufacturer liable, concluding that Vermont law would permit recovery for injuries caused by an unreasonably dangerous automotive defect without privity, and that the trial’s use of impleader, instructions, and proof supported the judgment.


Wasik v. Borg, 423 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1970)