DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Petitioner - Supreme Court ...

[the plaintiffs] claim of injury is simply too speculative to constitute a legally cognizable
tort injury.” Id. at 565. The case law demonstrates that it does not matter what state law
cause of action a plaintiff alleges. Whether he or she asserts claims for negligence,
breach of warranty, consumer protection violations, or equitable relief, the law recognizes
that absent a present, manifest injury, the plaintiff lacks a legally viable injury.
Rulings by federal courts go the same way. For example, in Briehl v. General
Motors Covp., 172 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 1999), plaintiffs brought a purported class action
alleging that their vehicles contained anti-lock braking systems that had a “tendenc[y]” to
fail by causing drivers to “misapply the brakes during emergencies where braking is
required.” Id. at 626. The plaintiffs defined the proposed class to cover owners of the
vehicles containing the allegedly defective braking systems, not cars in which the braking
system actually failed. See id. at 626 n.6. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ wide-
ranging set of claims (i.e., fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach
of implied warranty, violation of a state consumer protection statute, breach of express
warranty, and breach of contract). See In re Gen. Motors Anti-Lock Brake Prods. Liab.
Litig., 966 F. Supp. 1525, 1528 (E.D. Mo. 1997). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Noting
that “[c]ourts have been particularly vigilant in requiring allegations of injury or damages
in products liability cases,” the court held that
[wlhere, as in this case, a product performs satisfactorily and never exhibits
an alleged defect, no cause of action lies. Since the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege any manifest defect and their vehicles perform in a satisfactory
manner, the District Court was correct when it dismissed the Plaintiffs’
Original Complaint.
17