Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews
291 So.2d 169 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is strictly liable for harm caused by a product's defective design, and this liability is not cut off by the foreseeable negligence of a dealer who fails to repair the defect after being notified. A user's contributory negligence in failing to discover or guard against a defect is not a defense to a strict products liability claim.
Facts:
- In November 1965, Ford Motor Company sold a tractor to a dealer, Ray Brothers Tractor Company, Inc.
- In April 1966, Ford sent a service bulletin to all dealers, including Ray Brothers, advising of a possible defect in the tractor's starter safety switch system and outlining necessary corrective measures.
- Ray Brothers never checked for nor attempted to remedy the defect on the tractor.
- The tractor was sold to its first owner, J.W. Goolsby, in November 1967, and was later damaged in a fire in February 1968.
- Ray Brothers purchased the salvaged tractor and rebuilt it with genuine Ford parts, but did not replace the original safety switch plunger, which was undamaged.
- In April 1970, Ray Brothers sold the rebuilt tractor to Earnest Matthews without warning him of the possible defect.
- On April 23, 1970, Matthews started the tractor while standing on the ground. The tractor was in gear, started, and ran over him, causing his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Ethel Matthews, as administratrix of Earnest Matthews' estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and Ray Brothers Tractor Company, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Benton County, Mississippi (trial court).
- During the trial, the plaintiff reached a settlement with Ray Brothers Tractor Company, Inc.
- The case proceeded as a bench trial with Ford Motor Company as the sole defendant.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and entered a judgment against Ford Motor Company.
- Ford Motor Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 dealer's negligent failure to repair a known defect, after receiving a service bulletin from the manufacturer, constitute a superseding cause that relieves the manufacturer from strict liability for injuries caused by the original defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Rodgers, Presiding Justice
No, the dealer's negligent failure to repair the defect is not a superseding cause that relieves the manufacturer from strict liability. The tractor left Ford's hands in a defective, unreasonably dangerous condition due to a faulty safety switch design, which was a proximate cause of the death. The court reasoned that a user's careless but foreseeable use of a product, such as starting the tractor from the ground, does not constitute misuse sufficient to bar recovery. Furthermore, contributory negligence for failing to guard against a possible defect is not a defense to strict liability. Most importantly, the negligence of the dealer, Ray Brothers, in failing to perform the recommended repair was not a superseding cause because it was foreseeable to Ford that a dealer might not respond to a service bulletin, especially given the high degree of danger involved. The original defect started the chain of events, and Ray Brothers' omission was a foreseeable, secondary cause, not the sole proximate cause.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the robust nature of strict products liability by limiting the effectiveness of the superseding cause defense for manufacturers. It establishes that a manufacturer's duty may not be discharged simply by warning an intermediary, like a dealer, of a defect. The ruling emphasizes the concept of foreseeability, holding that if a third party's negligence is a foreseeable risk, it will not sever the causal chain back to the manufacturer's original defect. This places a greater burden on manufacturers of dangerous products to ensure defects are corrected, rather than relying on intermediaries to do so.
Unlock the full brief for Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews