Back v. Wickes Corp.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityWarrantyNegligent designMisuseIndustry customimplied warranty of merchantabilityproduct misuse

Facts

Four students died when a borrowed motor home struck a cable fence on the Massachusetts Turnpike, overturned, caught fire, and exploded; a passing truck driver, Mead, was injured while attempting a rescue. The plaintiffs claimed the motor home was negligently designed and unmerchantable because design choices made the fuel tank vulnerable and the vehicle highly flammable in a collision. The defendants disputed defect and introduced evidence that the vehicle conformed to prevailing industry and safety standards. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that misuse or abuse of the product would be a complete defense to the warranty claims.

Issue

Whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury on misuse in the warranty claims where there was no evidence of unforeseeable misuse, and whether the judge erred regarding the relevance of industry custom and the negligence standard. More specifically, the case asked whether a collision with a highway guardrail could be treated as an abnormal or extraordinary use relieving the manufacturer of warranty liability.

Rule

In a Massachusetts warranty action for personal injuries, the ordinary purposes of goods include both intended uses and reasonably foreseeable uses. A manufacturer is not liable for unforeseeable misuse or bizarre, unforeseeable accidents, but it must design against reasonably foreseeable risks in the environment where the product will be used; thus, a misuse instruction is improper absent evidence of unforeseeable misuse. In design-defect warranty cases, evidence of conformity with industry practice is relevant though not dispositive, and negligence is measured by the conduct of the ordinary reasonably prudent manufacturer in like circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Elena Park was injured when a delivery van made by Summit Forge Vehicles slid on rainwater, struck a concrete median, and the battery housing ruptured, causing a fire. Elena sued on an implied warranty of merchantability theory, claiming the battery pack was placed where ordinary roadway collisions could puncture it.

At trial, the manufacturer asks for a jury instruction that striking a median is an "extraordinary or unusual" use of the van and therefore a complete defense to warranty liability. How should the judge rule?

Explanation. The majority held that, in a personal-injury warranty action, the product’s ordinary purposes include intended uses and reasonably foreseeable uses. A manufacturer need not design a product to be accident-proof, but it must design against reasonably foreseeable risks in the environment of use. A collision with ordinary roadside objects is foreseeable, so a misuse instruction would be improper without evidence of unforeseeable misuse. (Derived from Back v. Wickes Corp. (n.d.).)