Phipps v. General Motors Corp.
363 A.2d 955, 278 Md. 337, 20 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 312 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seller of a product in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer is strictly liable in tort for physical harm caused by the defect, even if the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product and the user has not entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
Facts:
- James D. Phipps was an employee at Marbert Motors, Inc., a car dealership.
- General Motors Corporation manufactured a 1972 Pontiac automobile which was delivered to Marbert Motors for servicing.
- On November 1, 1972, Phipps was test-driving the Pontiac in Annapolis, Maryland.
- During the test drive, the accelerator allegedly became stuck without warning, causing the car to accelerate suddenly at a high rate of speed.
- The car left the highway and crashed into a tree, causing Phipps to sustain injuries.
- Phipps alleged the malfunction was due to latent defects in the car's accelerator mechanism, carburetor, and motor mounts, which existed when the car left General Motors' control.
Procedural Posture:
- James D. Phipps and his wife, Evalyn Phipps, filed a lawsuit against General Motors Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The complaint included counts for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability in tort.
- General Motors filed a motion to dismiss the strict liability counts, arguing that Maryland law did not recognize such a cause of action.
- The U.S. District Court, finding no controlling precedents from Maryland's highest court, certified two questions of law to the Court of Appeals of Maryland for determination.
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 Maryland law recognize a cause of action for strict liability in tort against a manufacturer for injuries caused by a product sold in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Eldridge, J.
Yes. Maryland law recognizes a cause of action based on strict liability in tort as defined in § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The court formally adopted this theory, finding it persuasive that public policy demands the burden of accidental injuries from defective products be placed on the manufacturers who market them. The court rejected General Motors' arguments that the Uniform Commercial Code's warranty provisions preempted the field or were sufficient protection, noting that strict liability in tort is distinct from contract-based warranty claims, which have different requirements such as notice and are subject to disclaimers. The court reasoned that strict liability is not a radical departure from tort principles but is akin to negligence per se, where placing a dangerously defective product on the market is itself considered a breach of duty. The court also answered a second certified question in the affirmative, holding that a joint action for loss of consortium is a claim for personal injury and may be maintained based on a breach of warranty under the UCC.
Analysis:
This landmark decision officially adopted the doctrine of strict products liability in Maryland, aligning the state with the overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions. By embracing § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court provided a new and more direct path for plaintiffs injured by defective products. The ruling shifts the legal focus from the manufacturer's conduct (negligence) to the condition of the product itself, thereby easing the plaintiff's evidentiary burden. This case significantly expanded consumer protection and increased the potential liability for manufacturers and sellers of goods in Maryland.
