Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co.
1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520, 619 S.W.2d 534 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is liable for injuries sustained during a foreseeable and reasonable attempt by a person to rescue their personal property from a peril created by the manufacturer's defective product.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Caldwell, a home builder, purchased a new Ford pickup truck.
- Caldwell was transporting a load of building materials in the truck to a job site.
- While he was driving, the truck's engine area suddenly caught fire.
- In response to the fire, Caldwell began hurriedly unloading the building materials from the truck's bed to save them from burning.
- Caldwell testified that because of the fire, he was "yanking" and "slinging" the materials away from the truck, a significantly different and more frantic manner than his normal, careful method of unloading.
- While pulling a 57-pound piece of siding from the truck in this hurried manner, he experienced a severe pain in his back.
- The injury was diagnosed as a ruptured intervertebral disc, resulting in a permanent partial disability.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Caldwell sued Ford Motor Company in a trial court based on a theory of strict products liability.
- The jury found in favor of Caldwell and awarded him $150,000.00 for personal injuries.
- Ford Motor Company, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, the state's intermediate appellate court. Caldwell is the appellee.
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 product defect that causes a fire proximately cause an injury sustained by the owner while reasonably attempting to rescue their property from that fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Franks, Judge.
Yes, a product defect that causes a fire is the proximate cause of an injury sustained during a reasonable attempt to rescue property from that fire. The court rejected Ford's argument that the fire did not directly injure Caldwell and that his actions broke the chain of causation. The court found there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that 'but for' the fire caused by the defect, Caldwell would not have unloaded the materials in the hurried, frantic manner that caused his injury. Caldwell's attempt to save his property was not a superseding cause but a 'normal intervening cause' that was a foreseeable consequence of the truck catching fire. The 'rescue doctrine' applies to reasonable attempts to save personal property, meaning a wrongdoer who imperils property is held to foresee that the owner will attempt a rescue. As Caldwell's actions were not rash or reckless, the injury he sustained during this foreseeable rescue attempt was within the scope of risk created by Ford's defective product and was a 'substantial factor' in causing his harm.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the concept of proximate cause in a strict products liability claim extends to injuries resulting from foreseeable, reasonable reactions to the danger created by the defective product. The court firmly applies the 'rescue doctrine' to the protection of property, framing it as a matter of foreseeability rather than a separate, rigid rule. This decision broadens the scope of a manufacturer's liability, making them responsible not only for direct harm from a product's failure but also for indirect harm sustained when a user reasonably attempts to mitigate damages or save property, thus reinforcing the policy of spreading the costs of product-related injuries.
Unlock the full brief for Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co.