Elmore v. American Motors Corp.
451 P.2d 84, 70 Cal. 2d 578, 33 A.L.R. 3d 406 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer and retailer are strictly liable in tort for injuries caused by a defective product, not only to purchasers or users but also to foreseeable bystanders who are injured as a result of the defect. This liability applies when a product is placed on the market knowing it will be used without inspection, and a defect in that product causes injury.
Facts:
- On March 16, 1962, Sandra Elmore and her husband purchased a 1962 Rambler American station wagon with a standard transmission from Mission Rambler Company.
- After the car had been driven about 1,500 miles, Mission Rambler Company serviced it, performing lubrication and changing the oil and oil filter.
- Mrs. Elmore later noticed the car was shimmying when she drove it between 60 and 65 miles per hour, but her husband did not think it was serious enough to warrant immediate servicing.
- On April 29, 1962, with the car having been driven 2,751 miles, Mrs. Elmore was driving southbound on a three-lane road near Northridge.
- A witness, Mr. Hendley, observed a series of “strong” sparks from underneath the Rambler, “like a big hunk of metal suddenly hitting the ground,” as Mrs. Elmore returned to her lane after attempting to overtake another vehicle.
- Immediately following the sparks, the Rambler started “fishtailing” and went out of control, crossing into the northbound lane where it collided with a vehicle driven by Mr. Waters.
- An expert mechanical engineer, Mr. Ausburn, later found metallic particles and plastic tape in the Rambler's steering gearbox and determined that the drive shaft was not properly attached and was buckled, concluding these were pre-existing defects that could cause the car to swerve and sparks to be generated.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (including Mrs. Sandra Elmore and Mr. Waters) initiated consolidated personal injury and wrongful death actions against defendants American Motors Corporation (manufacturer) and Mission Rambler Company (retailer) in the trial court.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ cases in chief, the trial court granted motions for nonsuit by American Motors Corporation and Mission Rambler Company.
- The trial court then dismissed the jury.
- Plaintiffs appealed from the ensuing judgments of nonsuit.
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 the doctrine of strict liability in tort apply to injuries sustained by a bystander due to a defective product, and if so, does it extend to both the manufacturer and the retailer of the product?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
Yes, the doctrine of strict liability in tort applies to injuries sustained by a bystander due to a defective product, and it extends to both the manufacturer and the retailer of the product. The court affirmed the principle from Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. and Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. that manufacturers and retailers are strictly liable for defective products. The underlying purpose of strict liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries from defective products are borne by those who put them on the market, not by injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. This liability should not be restricted by privity of contract, as the court's prior rulings used language applicable to 'human beings generally,' not just consumers or users. An injury to a bystander is often a foreseeable risk of the manufacturer’s enterprise, and bystanders are in greater need of protection because they lack the opportunity to inspect for defects or choose reputable manufacturers/retailers, unlike consumers or users. An automobile with a defectively connected drive shaft, for example, constitutes a substantial hazard to all on the highway, including other drivers and pedestrians. The public policy protecting a vehicle's driver and passenger should logically extend to bystanders. Furthermore, the rationale for holding retailers strictly liable, namely their integral role in the distribution chain and their ability to exert pressure on manufacturers for safety, applies equally regardless of whether the injured party is a purchaser, user, or bystander. The court concluded that the plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to infer that a defect existed at the time of sale and proximately caused the accident, thus making the nonsuit inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadened the reach of strict product liability, extending protection beyond direct purchasers and users to include all foreseeable bystanders injured by a defective product. It firmly established that liability in product defect cases is not contingent upon a contractual relationship (privity of contract), but rather on public policy demanding that those who introduce products into the market bear the costs of injuries their defective products cause. The ruling has had a profound impact on product liability law, influencing other jurisdictions to adopt similar bystander liability, thereby increasing consumer protection and incentivizing manufacturers and retailers to prioritize product safety for a wider scope of potential victims.
