Book Opener

“strict liability in tort and implied warranty in theabsence of privity are different ways of describingthe very same cause of action.”Nevertheless, the court explained that the tortcause of action did not completely replace the olderbreach-of-implied warranty cause of action and thatthey were not identical in every respect. In rulingagainst Ford, the court emphasized two points:• The warranty approach is still alive, andits vitality is evidenced by its “retention andexpansion in New York’s version of theUniform Commercial Code.”• The core element of “defect” in each cause ofaction is subtly different given its differenthistorical and doctrinal origins.Distinguishing the Causes of ActionIn distinguishing the two causes of action,the court pointed out that under New York law,injury due to a design defect was actionable understrict product liability “if the product is not reasonablysafe.” The existence of a design defect isdetermined under New York lawby asking whether “if the designdefect were known at the time ofmanufacture, a reasonable personwould conclude that the utility ofthe product did not outweigh therisk inherent in marketing a productdesigned in that manner.” Thisanalysis requires a weighing ofthe product’s dangers against itsoverall advantages.In contrast, the UCC-basedconcept of a “defective” productrequires an inquiry only intowhether the product at issue is“fit for the ordinary purposesfor which such goods are used”(UCC 2-314[2][c]). This analysisfocuses on the expectationsof a product when used in “thecustomary, usual, and reasonably foreseeablemanners.” Under this cause of action, an injuredparty can recover by showing that the product wasnot minimally safe for its expected use “withoutregard to the feasibility of alternative designs orthe manufacturer’s ‘reasonableness’ in marketingit in that unsafe condition.”As a result of these differences, the court explainedthat “defect” analysis in strict product liabilityactions are more concerned with socialpolicy and risk allocation. In contrast, “defect”analysis in breach-of-implied-warranty actionsoriginates in contract law and focuses upon a purchaser’sdisappointed expectations.Holding Given the historical and doctrinaldifferences between the two causes of action, thecourt ruled against Ford and held that “under thecircumstances presented here, it is possible to beliable for breach of implied warranty even thougha claim of strict product liability has not been satisfactorilyestablished.”1. Why was Ford’s argument flawed?2. What was the primary weakness of the breachof warranty theory in product liability cases?3. When may a design defect be actionable undera strict product liability theory?4. What is the New York standard for determiningthe existence of a design defect?5. What inquiry must be made to determinewhether a product is defective under the UCC?6. How do the origins of breach of impliedwarranty actions and strict product liabilityactions differ?Go to the Understanding Business and Personal Law Web Site at ubpl.glencoe.comfor information about how to access online resources for the Landmark Cases.Chapter 17: Personal Property and Bailments 387