Book Opener

UNITDenny v. Ford Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals662 N.E.2d 730 (NY)Landmark CaseIssue Is a claim of strict product liability identical to a claim of breach of impliedwarranty liability, making it inconsistent to find a defendant liableunder one cause of action but not the other?Factsacts Nancy Denny was injured when her FordBronco II rolled over after she slammed herbrakes to avoid hitting a deer. She sued FordMotor Company, asserting claims for negligence,strict product liability, and breach of implied warrantyof merchantability. Denny introduced evidenceshowing that the vehicle was moredangerous than ordinary passenger automobiles,but Ford argued that the design features werenecessary for the vehicle’s off-road capabilitiesand that the vehicle was not intended to be soldas a conventional passenger vehicle. The juryfound that the Bronco II was not “defective” forpurposes of strict product liability theory, but thatthe defendant was still liable for breach of warrantyof merchantability. On appeal, Ford arguedthat the two claims are the same and that thejury’s verdict was inconsistent.Opinion The New York Court of Appealsfocused on the development of product liabilitylaw as the courts tried to keep pace with a radicallychanging economic landscape. It pointed out thattraditionally the judiciary had relied on contractualwarranty theories as the only way of awarding economicrecovery for injuries that people suffer as aresult of defective goods. This approach made goodsense in an economic world in which most386 Unit 3: Understanding Consumer Lawtransactions occurred in a marketplace in whichbuyers and sellers interacted on a personal basis. Insuch cases, it was relatively easy to establish the requirementof a relationship of privity and to recovercompensation for injuries.However, the court recognized that as thefundamentals of the economy changed, courtshad to change with them if injured parties wereto recover damages: “Eventually, the contractuallybased implied warranty theory came to beperceived as inadequate in an economic universethat was dominated by mass-produced productsand an impersonal marketplace.” As a result,courts began to realize the need for a new, moreflexible tort cause of action.Development of Strict Product LiabilityThe new cause of action was called the strictproduct liability. This cause of action “significantlydiminished the need to rely on the contractuallybased breach-of-implied warrantyremedy as a means of compensating individualsinjured because of defective products.” While theapplicable principles and available defenses differ,the court reasoned that there is a great dealof overlap between the substantive aspects ofthe two causes of action. The court even admittedthat it had earlier observed, in dictum, that