DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Petitioner - Supreme Court ...

460 (D.N.J. 1998); see, e.g., Garza, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 532, at *I9 (“For purchasers who never experienced a
problem during the time they owned the car, they got what they paid for - a vehicle that provided transportations
with a brake system that safely stopped the car.”); Wallis v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV-2002-154-2, slip op. at 1-2
(Ark. Cir. Ct. Jan. 15, 2004) (dismissing fraud and consumer protection act claim based on an “allegedly
unreasonable tendency to roll over” because “plaintiff has not experienced a cognizable injury or damages as a result
of the alleged defect”); Accardo v. Bririgesfone-Firestone, Inc., No. 44495, slip op. at 3 (40th Judicial Dist. Ct., St.
John the Baptist Parish, La., Apr. 21, 2004) (dismissing redhibition and unjust enrichment claims based on same
allegations for a lack of any legally cognizable injury); Green v. Gen. Motors Corp., KO. A-2831-01T-5, 2003 WL
21730592, at *6-*9 (N.J. Super. App. Div. July 10, 2003) (barring “no injury” claim under warranty law and
consumer protection act); Frank, 741 N.Y.S.2d at 11, 16 (rejecting claim that vehicle backrests were “susceptible to
rearward collapse” because “it would be manifestly unfair to require a manufacturer to become, in essence, an
indemnifier for a loss that may never occur”); Ziegelmann v. Daimler Chlysler Corp., 649 N.W.2d 556, 565 (N.D.
2002) (complaint alleging defect in vehicle because lack of park-brake interlock device “failed to plead any legally
cognizable injury’’ where “[tlhe gist of [complaint] is that the vehicle might malfunction and cause injury in the
future”); Ford Motor Co. v. Rice, 726 So. 2d 626, 627, 631 (Ala. 1998) (holding that plaintiffs could not pursue
claim for fraudulent suppression involving Bronco I1 vehicles with alleged tendency to roll over where the “alleged
product defect . . . has not manifested itself in such a way as to cause any observable adverse physical or economic
consequences.”); Am. SuzukiMotor Corp. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1291, 1296 (1995) (where class action
plaintiffs allege that they have suffered no personal injury or propew damage from an allegedly defectively
designed vehicle they cannot state a cause of action for breach of implied warranty); Yu v. IBM Corp., 732 N.E.2d
1173, 1177-78 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (dismissing consumer fraud and negligence action due to lack of actual injury or
damages); Capital Holding Corp. v. Bailey, 873 S.W.2d 187, 192 (Ky. 1994) (holding that no cause of action
accrues with respect to defective product “until the potentially harmful [product] actually ‘causes injury that
produces loss or damage”’) (quotations and citation omitted); Spuhl v. Shiley, Inc., 795 S.W.2d 573, 580 (Mo. Ct.
App. 1990) (rejecting failure to warn claims because plaintiff did not allege “failure or malfunction of the product”);
Lavelle v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 507 N.E.2d 476, 479 (Ohio Ct. Com. P1. 1987) (barring claim alleging
increased risk of cancer because “the injury, and the damages resulting, must be shown with certainty, and not be
left to speculation or conjecture, whether the action is in contract or tort; damages which are uncertain, speculative,
or conjectural cannot be recovered”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Eriehl v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
172 F.3d 623, 628-29 (8th Cir. 1999) (dismissing plaintiffs’ wide-ranging set of claim (i.e., fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranty, state consumer protection statute, breach of
express warranty, and breach of contract) due to no injury); Angus v. Shiley, Inc., 989 F.2d 142, 148 (3d Cir. 1993)
(disallowing no injury claim concerning allegedly defective heart valves because law not intended to “sanction a
large, if not vast, number of lawsuits by consumers who obtained properly functioning valves”); Willett v. Barter
Int’l, Inc., 929 F.2d 1094, 1099-1100 (5th Cir. 1991) (same); Carlson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287, 291 (4th
Cir. 1989) (dismissing tort and implied warranty claims by “named plaintiffs who did not allege that they
encountered engine difficulties with their own cars”); Feinstein v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 535 F. Supp. 595
(S.D.N.Y. 1982) (rejecting implied warranty claims asserted on behalf of vehicle owners who had experienced
failure-free performance from their Firestone tires, notwithstanding the claim that tires were inherently defective and
likely to fail); In re Air Bag Prods. Lid Litig., 7 F. Supp. 2d at 804 (dismissing tort and implied warranty claim
brought by putative class alleging defective air bags because “the absence of manifest injury is so fundamental a
deficiency. . . that such claims are more appropriately dismissed than preserved”); Martin v. Ford Motor Co., 914 F.
Supp. 1449, 1454-56 & n.9 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (“[Tlhe manufacture of an unsafe vehicle itself, if such has indeed
occurred, cannot constitute the cause of injury to Plaintiffs [without damage.]”); Weaver v. Chlysler Coi-p., 172
F.R.D. 96, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“Where, as here, a product perfom satisfactorily and never exhibits the alleged
defect, no cause of action lies.”); Lee, 950 F. Supp. at 174-75 (rejecting claims that roofs on sport-utility vehicles
were defective where plaintiffs experienced no defects in their vehicles); Hubbard, 1996 WL 274018, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. May 22, 1996) (“[A] Suburban that perfom satisfactorily and never exluhits the alleged braking system
defect is fit for the purposes intended ”); BarbaFin v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 84-0888, 1993 WL 765821, at *2
(D.D.C. Sept. 22, 1993) (“The court will . . . dismiss the claims of all plaintiffs whose X-cars never experienced the
phenomenon of ‘premature rear wheel lock-up . . . .”’); Yosf v. Gen. Motors Corp., 651 F. Supp. 656 (D.N.J. 1986)
(dismissing complaint for fraud and breach of warranty for failure to state a claim where plaintiff could only allege
that vehicle was likely dangerous).
15