No. To prove a product was dangerously faulty, you have to show it was more dangerous than a normal customer would expect. Hitting a big rock at highway speed is not a normal, everyday event. Because of this, a jury of regular people can't just guess how strong a wheel should be in that specific situation. The driver needed to bring in more evidence, like an expert witness, to show that a reasonable person would expect the wheel to survive that kind of impact. Since he didn't, he loses the case.

Yes. A jury should have been allowed to decide this. Juries use their common sense all the time to decide what's reasonable. They should be able to decide if a truck that's sold as 'rugged' should have wheels that can handle hitting a rock. The majority is making it too hard for the driver to prove his case and is protecting the company too much by not trusting the jury.

No, the person suing didn't show enough proof that the wheel was badly made or designed. I think it's up to the jury to decide if a product didn't meet what a normal buyer would expect, but there wasn't enough information for the jury to make that decision without guessing. I agree with ending the case early, saying the jury needs real facts to decide if a product is too dangerous. I also note that in situations without direct proof of a defect, the person suing could still win by proving the product didn't work as safely as a normal buyer would expect.

Yes, the person suing argued that the wheel should be considered too dangerous based on how the truck was advertised as strong and tough. I think the jury should be able to use their own knowledge and experience to decide if the wheel was too dangerous, without needing extra proof about what regular buyers would think. I think the majority is wrong to ask for more proof and is making it too hard to hold the company responsible for a dangerous product. The consumer expectations test should apply even without direct proof of a defect.

—a personal-injuries case, we said that products liability was a form of strict liability as formulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.

Whether a product is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer is a factual question to be determined by the jury

When it is shown that a product failed to meet the reasonable expectations of the user the inference is that there was some sort of defect, a precise definition of which is unnecessary. If the product failed under conditions concerning which an average consumer of that product could have fairly definite expectations, then the jury would have a basis for making an informed …

When a jury is "unequipped, either by general background or by facts supplied in the record, to decide whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected," this court has recognized that additional evidence about the ordinary consumer's expectations is necessary.

—holding both manufacturer of a defective automobile and the dealer who sold it liable for product defect on strict liability theory

—expect from the product. Where the jury has no experiential basis for knowing this, the record must supply such a basis. In the absence of either common experience or evidence, any verdict would, in effect, be the jury's opinion of how strong the product should be. Such an opinion by the jury would be formed without the benefit of data concerning the cost or feasibility of …

"In the type of case in which there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, available to prove exactly what sort of manufacturing flaw existed, or exactly how the design was deficient, the plaintiff may nonetheless be able to establish his right to recover, by proving that the product did not perform in keeping with the reasonable expectations of the user. When it is shown that …

However, courts soon encountered a variety of problems in applying the consumer expectations test, notably the vagueness of the test, particularly when jurors applied it to technologically complex products. Id

—although not applying the rule to facts where plaintiff's truck wheel hit a rock in a road and later left the road and tipped over, the wheel then having a split rim, stated the rule thus 435 P. 2d at page 808 [4-6]: "In the type of case in which there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, available to prove exactly what sort of manufacturing flaw existed, or exactly

We have assumed that such a cause of action sounds in tort and thus is unhampered by the statutory impediments to relief for breach of warranty.

No. A product's failure under conditions outside the common experience of an ordinary user is not sufficient evidence, by itself, to prove the product was dangerously defective. In adopting the consumer expectation test from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, the court held that a product is 'unreasonably dangerous' if it is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer. A plaintiff can prove this by showing: (1) a manufacturing defect, (2) a dangerous design, or (3) a product failure under circumstances where common knowledge allows a jury to infer the user's reasonable expectations. Here, a high-speed collision with a large rock is not a common occurrence. Therefore, the jury lacks the experiential basis to determine what an ordinary consumer would expect of the wheel's performance. Without additional evidence on consumer expectations, letting the jury decide would be pure speculation and would improperly convert strict liability into absolute liability.

Yes. A product's failure under these conditions should be sufficient evidence for a jury to consider. The dissent argues that determining the reasonable expectations of a consumer is precisely the kind of factual question juries are equipped to handle, analogous to determining 'reasonable conduct' in negligence cases. The jury should be allowed to use its collective experience to decide if a wheel on a truck advertised as 'rugged' should withstand an impact with a five-inch rock. The majority's requirement for specific evidence of consumer expectations is impractical and reflects a desire to improperly limit the scope of strict liability by removing the decision from the jury.

No, because the plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of flawed manufacture or dangerous design. The plaintiff's own expert witness expressed an opinion that the wheel was not defective. I hold that the jury, rather than the court, should decide whether a product failed to meet the standard expected by an ordinary consumer. However, the record did not furnish a basis for the jury to make an informed decision without resorting to speculation. I affirm the nonsuit, emphasizing that the jury must have a factual basis for determining a product's defectiveness, and without such evidence, any verdict would be mere opinion. I also recognize that in cases where there is no direct evidence of a defect, the plaintiff may establish a right to recover by showing that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected.

Yes, because the plaintiff's argument that the wheel should be deemed unreasonably dangerous is based on the representations made by the manufacturer about the product's durability. I suggest that the jury should be allowed to determine the reasonableness of the consumer's expectations based on their experiences and observations, and that the majority's requirement for additional evidence of community standards is unnecessary. I criticize the majority for limiting the burden of strict liability by distorting the jury's role and not recognizing the consumer expectations test's applicability even in the absence of direct evidence of a manufacturing flaw or design deficiency.

Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot