Denny v. Ford Motor Company

639 N.Y.S.2d 250 (1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Denny (P) was severely injured when the Ford Bronco II that she was driving rolled over. P slammed on her brakes in an effort to avoid a deer. P sued Ford (D) asserting claims for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. P introduced evidence to show that small utility vehicles such as the Bronco II, in particular, present a significantly higher risk of rollover accidents than do ordinary passenger automobiles. Plaintiffs' evidence also showed that the Bronco II had a low stability index attributable to its high center of gravity and relatively narrow track width. The vehicle's shorter wheelbase and suspension system were additional factors contributing to its instability. D argued at trial that the design features were necessary to the vehicle's off-road capabilities. D's own engineer stated that he would not recommend the Bronco II to someone whose primary interest was to use it as a passenger car since the features of a four-wheel-drive utility vehicle were not helpful for that purpose and the vehicle's design made it inherently less stable. P introduced a Ford marketing manual which touted both off road, and on-road use as a passenger vehicle. The District Court submitted both the strict products liability claim and the breach of implied warranty claim, despite D's objection that the two causes of action were identical. For strict liability, the court told the jury that 'a manufacturer who places a product on the market in a defective condition is liable for injury which results from use of the product when the product is used for its intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose.' With respect to the breach of implied warranty claim, the court told the jury: 'The law implies a warranty by a manufacturer which places its product on the market that the product is reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. If it is, in fact, defective and not reasonably fit to be used for its intended purpose, the warranty is breached. D got the verdict on strict liability and P got the verdict for $1.2 million under the implied warranty claim. D appealed. The court of appeals certified questions.