Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Washington · 1932 · Torts

12 P.2d 409 (Wash. 1932)

Updated July 19, 2026

TortsMisrepresentationProducts LiabilityPrivitymanufacturer liabilityno privityexpress representationsproduct qualities

Facts

Plaintiff bought a Model A Ford sedan from St. John Motors, a Ford dealer that had acquired the car from Ford Motor Company. Ford had furnished catalogues and printed sales material stating that the windshield was made of Triplex shatter-proof glass that would not fly or shatter under the hardest impact. While plaintiff was driving, a pebble from a passing car struck the windshield, causing glass to fly into his left eye and resulting in its loss. Plaintiff claimed he relied on the representations about the windshield when purchasing the car.

Issue

May an ultimate purchaser recover against a manufacturer for injuries caused by the absence of represented product qualities that are not readily discoverable, even though the purchaser bought through a dealer and lacked privity of contract with the manufacturer? Also, were the manufacturer's catalogues and related reliance evidence admissible on that issue?

Rule

When a manufacturer represents that its product possesses certain qualities, and the absence of those qualities is not readily detectable by a person of ordinary experience and reasonable prudence, an ultimate purchaser may rely on those representations and pursue a remedy against the manufacturer for resulting injury even without privity of contract. The rule rests not on contract warranty running with the goods, but on the wrong of putting into commerce an article lacking the represented safety qualities.

🔒

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 Portland, Oregon, Nia Patel bought a motorcycle helmet from Riverfront Cycle, an independent retailer. The helmet maker, Summit Arc Safety, had supplied brochures stating the face shield was made of material that "will not splinter or send fragments toward the rider on impact." After a stone kicked up from traffic struck the shield, it broke and fragments injured Nia's eye.

If Nia sues Summit Arc Safety, which argument most strongly supports allowing her claim to go forward?

Explanation. The majority rule allows an ultimate purchaser to proceed against a manufacturer when the manufacturer represented that the product had a particular safety quality, the absence of that quality was not readily detectable by a person of ordinary experience and reasonable prudence, the purchaser relied, and injury resulted. The claim does not depend on contractual privity or on a warranty running with the goods.