Elmore v. American Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsStrict products liabilityBystander recoveryCircumstantial evidenceProximate causestrict liabilityproducts liabilitybystanders

Facts

Mrs. Elmore bought a new 1962 Rambler station wagon from Mission Rambler, and after limited use she noticed some shimmying at highway speeds. Shortly before the accident, a witness saw heavy sparks coming from underneath the car, after which the car fishtailed, crossed into the wrong lane, and collided with the Waters vehicle. Expert testimony indicated that a metal part from the front portion of the car gouged the roadway and that a disconnected drive shaft could fall, spark, gouge the road, and cause the rear of the car to lift and swerve. The expert further testified that a drive shaft would not ordinarily fall within 2,700 miles from driver conduct or normal wear and tear, but from loose fastenings or metal failure.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to avoid nonsuit by permitting an inference that a defect in the Rambler existed at the time of sale and proximately caused the accident. Whether strict products liability in tort extends to bystanders injured without fault by a defective automobile, and if so, whether it applies against both the manufacturer and the retailer.

Rule

A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when a product placed on the market for use without inspection contains a defect that causes injury to a human being, and a retailer engaged in distributing such products is likewise strictly liable. The existence of the defect, the defendants' responsibility for it, and causation may be established by circumstantial evidence. This strict liability doctrine extends to bystanders foreseeably injured without fault by the defective product, not just purchasers or users.

🔒

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 Sacramento, Nora Kim was waiting at a bus stop when a nearly new delivery van suddenly shed part of its front suspension, veered onto the curb, and struck her. The van had been sold new three weeks earlier by Rivergate Auto Center, and an engineer is prepared to testify that this kind of detachment does not ordinarily occur from normal driving over such a short period.

If Nora sues both the van’s manufacturer and Rivergate Auto Center on a strict products liability theory, which is the strongest statement of the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that strict products liability is not limited to purchasers or users. It extends to bystanders foreseeably injured without fault by a defective product, and the rule applies against both the manufacturer and the retailer engaged in distributing the product. Nora’s status as a bystander does not bar her claim. (Derived from Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (n.d.).)