Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityNegligenceStrict liabilityProximate causeIntervening criminal actsdemurrerforeseeability

Facts

The plaintiffs alleged that Amy Stahlecker was driving a 1997 Ford Explorer equipped with a Firestone tire when the tire failed in a remote area, rendering the vehicle inoperable. They did not allege that Amy was physically injured by the tire failure itself. Instead, they alleged that after the failure left Amy stranded, Richard Cook found her, abducted, raped, and murdered her. The plaintiffs claimed Ford and Firestone negligently and defectively designed, manufactured, tested, warned about, and failed to recall the tire and vehicle, and that those defects and omissions led to Amy's death.

Issue

Whether the amended petition stated a cause of action against Ford and Firestone in negligence or strict products liability when the alleged product defect merely stranded Amy and the injuries and death were directly inflicted by a third party's criminal acts. More specifically, whether Cook's criminal assault and murder were an efficient intervening cause that defeated proximate cause as a matter of law.

Rule

Even if a manufacturer negligently or defectively places a product on the market and the defect creates a situation affording an opportunity for crime, the intentional tort or crime of a third person is a superseding or efficient intervening cause unless the manufacturer had a duty to anticipate and guard against that criminal act. In Nebraska, such a duty generally arises only where the defendant has some right of control over the perpetrator or the premises, or a special relationship with the perpetrator or victim; absent such a duty, a criminal act at the scene of a product failure breaks proximate cause.

🔒

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.

Nina Alvarez was driving outside Amarillo, Texas, when a defectively manufactured fuel pump in her sedan failed and left the car unable to restart on a frontage road. Nina was not physically hurt by the breakdown itself, but an armed stranger soon approached, robbed her, and shot her.

If Nina's estate sues the sedan manufacturer for negligent design and failure to warn, what is the strongest argument for dismissal under the majority rule?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, even if the product defect negligently stranded the victim and but-for causation exists, proximate cause fails when the injury is directly inflicted by a third party's intentional crime, unless the manufacturer had a duty to anticipate and guard against that crime. Such a duty generally requires control over the perpetrator or premises, or a special relationship. None is present here, so the shooting is an efficient intervening cause. (Derived from Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Co. (n.d.).)