Ysbrand v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

81 P.3d 618 (2003)

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

D is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. Ps, each an owner of one of D's minivans, have asserted Uniform Commercial Code claims for 'breach of express warranty,' 'breach of implied warranty of merchantability,' and 'breach of implied warranty of fitness.' In addition, they assert a claim for 'fraud and deceit.' Ps claim that the front passenger seat airbags are defective. Ps assert that D failed to warn that this defect has the potential to kill or seriously injure a child or small adult seated in the front passenger seat. Ps claim that there are airbags available that deploy with less force and at higher collision speeds. They claim that these bags are currently used as replacements when a bag has been deployed. Ps seek damages in an amount sufficient to allow owners to install the 'safer' airbags or, in the alternative, replacement of the 'defective' airbags by D. The trial court determined that 'the alleged choice of law problems identified by D did not bar certification.' It relied upon In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Liability Litigation, which granted class certification upon a finding of predominance. The court certified a class for all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The court excluded those who had deactivated the bags or had suffered personal injury from a deployment or had replaced them. D appealed.