Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.
Facts
Plaintiff Vandermark bought a new Ford from Maywood Bell, an authorized Ford dealer, and about six weeks later lost control of the car on the freeway and crashed, injuring himself and plaintiff Tresham. He had earlier experienced a similar pulling-to-the-right braking incident and testified that he reported it when the car was taken to Maywood Bell for regular new-car servicing. Plaintiffs' expert testified that the brakes applied themselves because the master cylinder piston failed to retract enough to uncover a bypass port, creating hydraulic pressure that caused the brakes to lock; the expert further testified that this failure could have resulted from several defect-related causes attributable to defendants. The collision damage prevented direct proof of the exact cause, but the court treated the evidence and offer of proof as sufficient to establish that a defect existed when the car was delivered to Vandermark and that the defect was caused by negligence in design, manufacture, assembly, or adjustment.
Issue
Whether Ford could avoid strict liability or negligence liability absent proof that the defect existed when Ford itself relinquished control, where the car passed through authorized dealers and final inspection and adjustment were delegated to dealers. Whether an authorized retail dealer that sells automobiles to the public is also strictly liable in tort for personal injuries caused by defects in the car, despite warranty disclaimers and lack of notice of breach.
Rule
A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when a product it places on the market, knowing it will be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes personal injury. That liability encompasses defects regardless of their source, and a manufacturer of a completed product cannot escape liability by delegating final inspection, correction, or adjustment to authorized dealers. A retailer engaged in the business of distributing goods to the public is likewise strictly liable in tort for personal injuries caused by defects in products it sells, and contractual warranty limitations and statutory notice requirements for breach of warranty do not bar that tort liability.
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
Test yourself
If the evidence shows the defect existed when the dealer delivered the motorcycle, but it is unclear whether the defect arose during factory assembly or dealer adjustment, which is the strongest argument regarding Summit Ridge Motors' strict liability?