Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford

Indiana Supreme Court
868 N.E.2d 806 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Absent special circumstances, a retail seller's duty to warn a consumer of a product's dangers is discharged when the seller provides the buyer with the manufacturer's adequate warnings.

Facts:

In May 2002, seventy-year-old Marilyn Rushford and her husband purchased a new 2002 Ford Focus Wagon from Eby Ford Sales, Inc. ('Eby').
Rushford informed the Eby salesperson that she had never driven an automobile.
The car contained a warning on the sun visor about air bag dangers, which Rushford saw but did not read closely, assuming it only pertained to children.
The car was also sold with an owner's manual containing more detailed warnings that air bags could injure adults, but Rushford did not read it because she was not the driver.
No one at Eby specifically pointed out the air bag warnings in the owner's manual to Rushford.
A few weeks after the purchase, Rushford was a passenger in the car when her husband was in a collision.
The passenger-side air bag deployed, causing Rushford to sustain serious injuries.

Procedural Posture:

Marilyn Rushford filed a product liability complaint against Ford Motor Company and Eby Ford Sales, Inc. in an Indiana trial court.
Eby and Ford Motor moved for summary judgment.
The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and certified its order for interlocutory review.
The Indiana Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the denial of summary judgment for Ford Motor but affirmed the denial for Eby, the appellant in this matter.
The Supreme Court of Indiana, the state's highest court, granted transfer to review the Court of Appeals' decision regarding Eby.

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 retail seller have a duty to provide additional warnings or direct a buyer's attention to existing manufacturer warnings when the manufacturer has already provided adequate warnings with the product?

Opinions:

Majority - Rucker, J.

No. A retail seller does not have an independent duty to provide additional warnings if it passes along the manufacturer's adequate warnings. The seller's duty to warn is discharged where it provides the buyer with the manufacturer’s warning of the danger at issue, absent special circumstances like the seller modifying the product. The court reasoned that once an adequate warning is given by the manufacturer, the seller may reasonably assume it will be read and heeded. To require a seller to assess each customer's unique characteristics and direct them to specific warnings in the manual would impose an 'untenable position and an unnecessary burden' on retailers. Since Eby provided Rushford with the car containing the manufacturer's undisputed, adequate warnings in the owner's manual, Eby fulfilled its legal duty.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the 'pass-through' nature of a seller's duty to warn in product liability law, effectively insulating retailers from liability when they simply sell a product with the manufacturer's original, adequate warnings. It places the primary responsibility for creating effective warnings on the manufacturer and the onus for reading those warnings on the consumer. The ruling prevents the expansion of a retailer's duty into that of a personalized safety consultant, thereby limiting a potential avenue for litigation against sellers and clarifying the scope of their liability.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"