Stang v. Hertz Corporation
83 N.M. 217, 490 P2.d 475 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court should defer to the legislature on the adoption of the doctrine of strict products liability, as such a sweeping policy decision involves complex economic and social considerations beyond the judiciary's institutional competence. Additionally, statements or affirmations made after a transaction is complete cannot form the 'basis of the bargain' necessary to create an express warranty.
Facts:
- Hertz Corporation rented a car to a nun.
- The car was equipped with a tire manufactured by Firestone Tire & Rubber Company.
- Catherine Lavan, also a nun, was a passenger in the rented car.
- The written rental agreement stated that the 'vehicle' was in good mechanical condition.
- After the rental transaction was complete, a Hertz representative told one of the nuns, 'you have got good tires.'
- While the car was being used, a tire blew out, causing an accident.
- The tire failure was due to impact damage that existed at the time the car was rented.
- Catherine Lavan suffered fatal injuries as a result of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Hertz Corporation and Firestone Tire & Rubber Company in a New Mexico trial court for wrongful death.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Firestone.
- The trial court judge granted a directed verdict in favor of defendant Hertz Corporation.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of Hertz (appellee) to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the court adopt the doctrine of strict products liability as defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, making a commercial lessor liable for injuries caused by a defective product it provided, irrespective of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, Chief Judge.
No. The adoption of strict products liability is a significant public policy decision that is properly left to the legislature, not the courts. The court declined to adopt § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as New Mexico law because such a rule involves complex economic considerations, like risk-spreading, and requires an assessment of public demand, for which the judiciary is ill-equipped. The court reasoned that since it was not adopting strict liability, the defendant's liability could only be based on negligence, which was not claimed by the plaintiffs. The court also rejected the express warranty claim, finding that neither the rental agreement nor the oral statement about the tires was part of the 'basis of the bargain' as required by the UCC, because there was no evidence of reliance and the oral statement was made after the contract was formed.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates judicial restraint, where a court declines to make a significant change in common law, deferring to the legislature. By refusing to adopt § 402A, the court preserved the traditional negligence standard for products liability in New Mexico at the time, placing the burden on plaintiffs to prove fault. This ruling highlights the debate over the proper role of the judiciary in shaping public policy, particularly when economic factors and broad societal impacts are at stake. It temporarily positioned New Mexico outside the growing national trend toward strict liability, emphasizing that such a shift should come from elected representatives.
