Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.
61 Cal. 2d 256, 37 Cal. Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168 (1964)
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article it places on the market proves to have a defect that causes injury, and this strict liability extends to retailers as integral parts of the overall producing and marketing enterprise, overriding contractual disclaimers or notice requirements for warranty claims.
Facts:
- In October 1958, Chester Vandermark purchased a new Ford automobile from Lorimer Diesel Engine Company, an authorized Ford dealer doing business as Maywood Bell Ford.
- About six weeks later, while driving on the San Bernardino Freeway, Vandermark lost control of the car, which went off the highway and collided with a light post.
- Vandermark and his sister, Mary Tresham, suffered serious injuries in the collision.
- Prior to the accident, Vandermark experienced an incident where the car unexpectedly dove to the right when he applied the brakes on the freeway, after which he took the car to Maywood Bell for its 1,000-mile service.
- An expert on hydraulic automobile brakes testified that the accident was caused by the brakes applying themselves due to a failure of the piston in the master cylinder to retract sufficiently to uncover a bypass port, leading to a closed system and expanded brake fluid.
- The expert further testified that the failure of the piston could have been caused by dirt in the master cylinder, a defective part, distortion of the firewall, or improper assembly or adjustment, all of which were attributable to the defendants.
- The master cylinder assembly was defective when the car was delivered to Vandermark, and this defect was caused by negligence in design, manufacture, assembly, or adjustment.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Chester Vandermark and Mary Tresham brought an action for damages against Maywood Bell Ford (retailer) and Ford Motor Company (manufacturer) in state trial court, alleging causes of action for breach of warranty and negligence.
- The trial court granted Ford Motor Company's motion for a nonsuit on all causes of action against it.
- The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Maywood Bell Ford on the warranty causes of action.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Maywood Bell Ford on the negligence causes of action.
- The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Plaintiffs appealed the judgments.
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 strict liability in tort for injuries caused by a defective product apply to both the manufacturer and the retailer of the product, thereby making contractual disclaimers of warranty liability and statutory notice requirements inapplicable?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
Yes, strict liability in tort for injuries caused by a defective product applies to both the manufacturer and the retailer of the product, rendering contractual disclaimers of warranty liability and statutory notice requirements inapplicable. The court held that a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when it places an article on the market that proves defective and causes injury, and this liability encompasses defects regardless of their source. A manufacturer of a completed product cannot escape liability by tracing the defect to a component part or by delegating final inspection and adjustment steps to its authorized dealers, as its duty to deliver cars free from dangerous defects is non-delegable (citing Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., and Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument Corp.). Furthermore, retailers like Maywood Bell are also strictly liable in tort because they are an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise that should bear the cost of injuries from defective products. Strict liability on both manufacturer and retailer offers maximum protection to injured plaintiffs and acts as an added incentive for safety. The court reasoned that since retailers are in the business of distributing goods, their strict liability in tort for defective products applies regardless of any contractual warranty disclaimers or the statutory requirement for timely notice of breach of warranty, as these are related to contract law (uniform sales act) and not tort liability.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded the scope of strict products liability in California, extending it beyond manufacturers to encompass retailers. It clarified that a manufacturer's duty to produce safe products is non-delegable, meaning they cannot shift liability to dealers for final inspections or adjustments. By holding retailers strictly liable, the court reinforced the policy of placing the burden of defective product injuries on those in the chain of distribution, who are best positioned to bear the cost and exert pressure for safety. This decision provides greater protection for consumers and reinforces that strict liability in tort is distinct from and not limited by contract-based warranty law.
