Henderson v. Ford Motor Company
519 S.W.2d 87 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability action, a plaintiff's contributory negligence after discovering a product defect is not a defense. To establish a design defect, a plaintiff must prove the design was unreasonably dangerous, not merely that a safer alternative design existed.
Facts:
- Irene S. Henderson purchased a 1968 Lincoln Continental manufactured by Ford Motor Company from dealer Snelling Motor Company.
- Seven months and approximately 9,000 miles after the purchase, Henderson was driving when the car's accelerator became stuck after she accelerated to enter a freeway.
- Henderson was unable to reduce the car's speed with the brakes, even while applying them with both feet, and confirmed the accelerator pedal was not depressed.
- To avoid colliding with other vehicles at an upcoming busy intersection, Henderson intentionally steered the car into a large metal signal pole, causing herself serious injury.
- A subsequent examination of the wreckage revealed that a piece of the rubber gasket from the air filter housing had become dislodged and fallen into the carburetor, jamming the throttle open.
- The design of the car's 462 model engine involved a rubber gasket glued into a groove on the underside of the air filter housing, which sat directly over the carburetor.
- Ford's successor engine, the 460 model, used a different design where a separate gasket was placed on top of the carburetor housing itself.
Procedural Posture:
- Irene S. Henderson sued Ford Motor Company and Snelling Motor Company in a Texas trial court.
- The jury found that the air filter housing was defectively designed and that this defect was a producing cause of Henderson's injuries.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Henderson based on the jury's verdict.
- Ford and Snelling (appellants) appealed to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the defendants were entitled to jury instructions on Henderson's contributory negligence.
- Both Henderson and Ford sought and were granted a writ of error from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there legally sufficient evidence of a defective design when expert testimony only indicates that an alternative design would be 'better,' without establishing that the product's actual design was unreasonably dangerous at the time of manufacture?
Opinions:
Majority - Reavley, J.
No, there is not legally sufficient evidence of a defective design where the proof amounts to little more than bare criticism and fails to establish that the design was unreasonably dangerous. First, the court holds that a plaintiff's contributory negligence after discovering a defect is not a defense to a strict liability claim, distinguishing it from assumption of risk, which requires a voluntary and knowing encounter with the danger. The court found no evidence that Henderson assumed the risk, as her actions were an attempt to escape peril, not a choice to encounter it. On the dispositive issue of design defect, the court concludes that liability requires proof that the design made the product unreasonably dangerous to an extent that a prudent manufacturer would not have marketed it, or it would not meet the ordinary consumer's safety expectations. Plaintiff's expert testimony that an alternative design would be 'better' or safer is insufficient. A manufacturer is not required to produce the best possible product, and liability cannot be based on speculation or the mere existence of a safer alternative.
Dissenting - Sam D. Johnson, J.
Yes, there was legally sufficient evidence for a jury to find a design defect. The majority failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. The dissent argues that there was ample evidence, including testimony that the design used sharp metal edges in close proximity to a soft rubber gasket, creating a tendency to cut the gasket. Furthermore, evidence showed it was difficult to properly seat the air filter housing, increasing the risk of pinching the gasket, and that Ford knew the manual gluing process was sometimes incomplete. The fact that Ford later changed to a safer design is further evidence supporting the jury's finding. This evidence rises above mere surmise or suspicion and provides a reasonable basis for the jury's conclusion that the design was unreasonably dangerous.
Analysis:
This case significantly shaped Texas products liability law by drawing a clear line between contributory negligence and assumption of risk, establishing that only the latter is a defense in strict liability. It also heightened the evidentiary standard for design defect claims, requiring plaintiffs to prove a product is 'unreasonably dangerous' rather than simply showing a safer alternative design exists. This protects manufacturers from liability based on hindsight and expert criticism alone, making design defect cases more difficult for plaintiffs and emphasizing the specific qualities of the challenged design itself.
