Prutch v. Ford Motor Co.
618 P.2d 657 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a breach of warranty claim against a remote manufacturer, a buyer satisfies their burden of proof by showing the product was defective at the time of purchase, not when it left the manufacturer's control. Notice to the immediate seller that is promptly relayed to the manufacturer is sufficient, and consequential damages are recoverable if they were a foreseeable result of the defect.
Facts:
- Carl and Sam Prutch, who are farmers, purchased a tractor, plow, disc harrow, and hay baler from Baldridge Implement Company (Baldridge).
- All four pieces of farm equipment were manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford).
- Upon using the newly-purchased equipment, the Prutches discovered it was defective and malfunctioned.
- The Prutches immediately notified Baldridge, the seller, of the defects.
- Baldridge, in turn, promptly notified Ford of the problems with the equipment.
- Ford sent a service representative to work on the equipment shortly after being notified.
- The failure of the implements resulted in significant crop losses for the Prutches.
- The Prutches continued using the faulty equipment because their only alternative was to abandon their crops entirely.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl and Sam Prutch sued Ford Motor Company and Baldridge Implement Company in a Colorado district court (trial court) for breach of warranty.
- The first trial ended in a mistrial.
- At the conclusion of the second trial, a jury awarded the Prutches $60,200 against Ford but found Baldridge not liable.
- Ford, as appellant, appealed the verdict to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the Prutches (appellees) had failed to meet their burden of proof and notice requirements.
- The Prutches, as petitioners, were granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Colorado to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a breach of warranty action against a remote manufacturer for defective products causing consequential damages, must a buyer prove the product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control, provide direct notice to the manufacturer, and show the manufacturer actually foresaw the damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. In a breach of warranty action, a buyer's burden is to show that a defect existed at the time of purchase, that notice to the immediate seller fulfilled the legal requirement where the manufacturer received actual notice, and that consequential damages were foreseeable. First, imposing a burden on a consumer to prove a defect existed when it left the manufacturer's control is unreasonably onerous given the complexity of modern distribution chains. A plaintiff meets their burden by establishing the defect arose before they purchased the item, which then shifts the burden to those in the chain of distribution, who have superior knowledge, to prove otherwise. Second, the purpose of the UCC notice requirement is to allow the seller to cure the defect, prepare for litigation, and protect against stale claims. These purposes were fully satisfied when Baldridge immediately notified Ford, which acted upon the notice, rendering formal, direct notice from the Prutches unnecessary. Third, consequential damages are based on a test of foreseeability ('reason to know'), not whether the manufacturer actually foresaw the specific damages. A manufacturer of farm equipment can reasonably foresee that defects will cause crop losses. The Prutches' decision to continue using the faulty equipment was a reasonable mitigation of damages, not an intervening cause, as their only other option was to suffer a total crop loss.
Analysis:
This decision significantly lowers the barrier for consumers bringing breach of warranty claims against remote manufacturers. By shifting the burden of proof regarding the origin of a defect, the court aligns legal standards with the practical realities of modern commerce, where consumers cannot trace a product's journey through the supply chain. The ruling reinforces a functional, rather than a formalistic, approach to the UCC's notice requirement, focusing on whether the manufacturer received actual, timely notice. The court's broad interpretation of 'foreseeability' for consequential damages also strengthens consumer remedies, holding manufacturers responsible for losses that are a predictable outcome of their product's failure.
