Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.
12 P.2d 409 (1932) (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is liable to a consumer for breach of express warranties made in public advertising and sales literature, even without privity of contract, when the consumer is injured because the product lacks the represented safety qualities that are not readily discoverable by the consumer.
Facts:
- Ford Motor Company manufactured a Model A Ford town sedan.
- Ford distributed catalogues and printed matter for its dealers, which represented that the car had a 'Triplex Shatter-Proof Glass Windshield' that 'will not fly or shatter under the hardest impact.'
- In May 1930, Baxter purchased one of these automobiles from St. John Motors, a Ford dealer.
- The written purchase order between Baxter and St. John Motors contained a clause stating it was the entire agreement and disclaiming all warranties, express or implied, made by the dealer.
- On October 12, 1930, while Baxter was driving, a pebble struck the windshield.
- The windshield shattered, causing small pieces of glass to fly into Baxter's left eye, resulting in its loss.
Procedural Posture:
- Baxter brought an action for damages against St. John Motors and Ford Motor Company in a trial court.
- The case proceeded to trial.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's testimony, the trial court took the case from the jury and entered a judgment in favor of both defendants.
- Baxter, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a consumer who purchased a product from a third-party dealer have a cause of action against the manufacturer for breach of express warranty based on representations made in the manufacturer's advertising materials, even though there is no privity of contract between the consumer and the manufacturer?
Opinions:
Majority - Herman, J.
Yes. A consumer has a cause of action against a manufacturer for breach of express warranty made in advertising, despite a lack of privity. The court reasoned that the traditional requirement of privity of contract is outdated and unjust in an era of mass advertising where manufacturers appeal directly to consumers. Citing exceptions to the privity rule for inherently dangerous items like impure foods (Mazetti v. Armour & Co.) and mislabeled drugs (Thomas v. Winchester), the court extended this logic to manufactured goods. When a manufacturer makes specific representations about a product's safety qualities that an ordinary consumer cannot easily verify, the consumer has a right to rely on them. To deny recovery would permit manufacturers to create demand through false representations without accountability. Therefore, the trial court erred in excluding Ford's advertising materials as evidence against the company. The judgment for the dealer, St. John Motors, was affirmed because the written sales contract contained a valid disclaimer of all dealer warranties.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in the erosion of the privity of contract doctrine in products liability law. It established that a manufacturer's express warranties made in public advertising could create direct liability to the ultimate consumer, regardless of the distribution chain. This holding recognized the reality of modern marketing and shifted the focus from the contractual relationship to the manufacturer's representations to the public. The decision paved the way for the broader development of product liability theories, including strict liability, by holding manufacturers accountable for the expectations and reliance they create through advertising.
Unlock the full brief for Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.