Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Washington · 1932 · Torts

TortsMisrepresentationManufacturer liabilityPrivityprivitymanufacturer representationsproduct safetyreliance

Facts

Plaintiff bought a Model A Ford town sedan from St. John Motors, a Ford dealer that had purchased 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 struck the windshield, small pieces of glass flew into his left eye, and he lost that eye. The written purchase order with the dealer stated it contained the entire contract and that no express or implied warranty was made by the dealer.

Issue

Whether, despite lack of privity between plaintiff and Ford Motor Company, plaintiff could rely on Ford's sales literature representations about the windshield and recover for injuries allegedly caused by the absence of the represented non-shatterable qualities. A related issue was whether those catalogues and plaintiff's reliance evidence should have been admitted against Ford but not against the dealer.

Rule

When a manufacturer represents to the public 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 seek recovery from the manufacturer for resulting injury even without privity of contract. The rule rests not on contractual warranty obligations, but on the wrong of placing into commerce an article represented as having safety qualities it does not in fact possess.

🔒

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, Elena Ruiz bought a home ladder from Summit Peak Tools, a retailer. The ladder had been advertised in brochures prepared by Ridgeway Equipment Co., the manufacturer, stating that its side rails were made of a special material that would not splinter under heavy stress; Elena could not tell by ordinary inspection whether that claim was true. When a rung twisted during normal use, the rail splintered and shards cut her hand.

If Elena sues Ridgeway Equipment Co. for her injury, what is the strongest basis for allowing her claim to go forward despite the absence of a direct sales contract between them?

Explanation. The majority rule is that liability does not rest on contractual warranty obligations, but on the wrong of putting into commerce an article represented as having certain safety-related qualities that it does not in fact possess, where the absence of those qualities is not readily discoverable by a person of ordinary experience and reasonable prudence. Because Elena relied on the manufacturer's own brochures and could not detect the truth by ordinary inspection, lack of privity does not bar the claim.