Gonzales v. Carmenita Ford Truck Sales, Inc.
192 Cal. App. 3d 1143, 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1844, 238 Cal. Rptr. 18 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product, although faultlessly manufactured, is defective under a strict liability theory if it is unreasonably dangerous to place in the hands of a user without a suitable warning about non-obvious dangers. The absence of a reasonably required warning can itself render the product defective by making its use unreasonably dangerous.
Facts:
- In 1976, General Chemical Company (GCC), Jeronimo Gonzales's employer, purchased a Ford C800 truck from Carmenita Ford Truck Sales, Inc. (Carmenita).
- GCC relied exclusively on Carmenita for all maintenance and service of the truck.
- On December 1, 1978, Carmenita performed a major brake job on the truck, replacing shoes, linings, and drums.
- Jeronimo Gonzales began driving the truck for GCC in March 1979.
- On May 16, 1979, Carmenita performed a general lubrication service on the truck, but no brake adjustment was performed.
- A day or two before the accident, Gonzales noticed a squealing sound from one of the wheels and requested permission from his foreman to have it serviced at Carmenita, but was told to wait until after an upcoming trip.
- On June 20, 1979, while Gonzales was driving down a steep freeway grade known as the Grapevine, the truck's brakes failed.
- The brake failure caused a multi-vehicle crash in which Gonzales sustained severe, disabling injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeronimo Gonzales filed a lawsuit in trial court against various defendants, but proceeded to trial solely against Carmenita Ford Truck Sales, Inc.
- Gonzales alleged causes of action for strict liability and negligence.
- At the close of trial, the trial court refused Gonzales’s request for a jury instruction on the theory of strict products liability for failure to warn.
- The jury returned a special verdict, finding no defect in the truck's brakes and that Carmenita was not negligent.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Carmenita.
- Gonzales's motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied by the trial court.
- Gonzales (appellant) appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 supplier's failure to provide adequate warnings about the need for, frequency of, and method for adjusting a truck's air brakes render the truck defective under a strict products liability theory, thus requiring a jury instruction on that theory?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, P. J.
Yes. A supplier's failure to provide adequate warnings about the need for and method of adjusting a truck's air brakes can render the truck defective, and where there is substantial evidence to support this theory, the plaintiff is entitled to a jury instruction on it. The court found substantial evidence that the truck's operator's manual was defective for failing to adequately warn about the critical need for, and proper method of, air brake adjustment. The manual provided detailed instructions for self-adjusting hydraulic brakes but was vague and unhelpful regarding the non-self-adjusting air brakes, burying adjustment specifications in a chart near the back. An expert testified that truck operators commonly lack knowledge about proper air brake adjustment. Citing Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co., the court held that a product is defective if it is unreasonably dangerous to place in the hands of a user without a suitable warning. This duty is not limited to inherently dangerous products; rather, the lack of a necessary warning itself renders the product defective. Because the danger of improperly adjusted air brakes was not obvious, Gonzales had a right to have the jury consider his failure-to-warn theory, and the trial court's refusal to instruct on it was prejudicial error.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the failure-to-warn doctrine within California's strict products liability law. It explicitly rejects a narrow interpretation that the duty to warn applies only to 'unavoidably dangerous' or 'ultrahazardous' products. The court established that the absence of an adequate warning can itself be the defect that makes an otherwise properly manufactured product unreasonably dangerous. This holding expands the potential liability for manufacturers and sellers, requiring them to provide clear and comprehensive warnings about critical maintenance procedures, not just inherent product dangers, particularly for complex systems not readily understood by ordinary users.
