NANCY DENNY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
87 N.Y.2d 248, 662 N.E.2d 730, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250
December 5, 1995
(Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
USCOA,2 No. 215 (1995 NY Int. 274)
Decided December 5, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
John H. Beisner, for Defendant.
Paul F. McAloon, for Plaintiffs.
Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., amicus curiae.
TITONE, J.: Are the elements of New York's causes of action for strict
products liability and breach of implied warranty always co-extensive?
If not, can the latter be broader than the former? These are the core
issues presented by the questions that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has certified to us in this diversity
action involving an allegedly defective vehicle. On the facts set
forth by the Second Circuit, we hold that the causes of action are not
identical and that, under the circumstances presented here, it is
possible to be liable for breach of implied warranty even though a
claim of strict products liability has not been satisfactorily
established.
I.
As stated by the Second Circuit, this action arises out of a June 9,
1986 accident in which plaintiff Nancy Denny was severely injured when
the Ford Bronco II that she was driving rolled over. The rollover
accident occurred when Denny slammed on her brakes in an effort to
avoid a deer that had walked directly into her motor vehicle's path.
Denny and her spouse sued Ford Motor Co., the vehicle's manufacturer,
asserting claims for negligence, strict products liability and breach
of implied warranty of merchantability (see, UCC §§ 2-314(c), -318).
The case went to trial in the District Court for the Northern District
of New York in October of 1992.
The trial evidence centered on the particular characteristics of
utility vehicles, which are generally made for off-road use on unpaved
and often rugged terrain. Such use sometimes necessitates climbing
over obstacles such as fallen logs and rocks. While utility vehicles
SNIPPETS:
NANCY DENNY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
These are the core issues presented by the questions that the United States Court of Appeals
On the facts set forth by the Second Circuit, we hold that the causes of action are not
As stated by the Second Circuit, this action arises out of a June 9, 1986 accident in which
The rollover accident occurred when Denny slammed on her brakes in an effort to avoid a deer
Denny and her spouse sued Ford Motor Co., the vehicle's manufacturer, asserting claims for
The case went to trial in the District Court for the Northern District of New York in October
At the close of the evidence, the District Court Judge submitted both the
With respect to the strict-products-liability claim the court told the jury that
the plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a reasonable person * * *
The law implies a warranty by a manufacturer who places its product on the market that the
Co., 37 NY2d 395, 400), it contends that the breach-of-implied-warranty cause of action,
However, the warranty approach remained unsatisfactory, and the courts shifted their focus to
The continued vitality of the warranty approach is evidenced by its retention and expansion
a design defect may be actionable under a strict products liability theory if the product is
The cause of action is one involving true "strict" liability, since recovery may be had upon
The dissent takes issue with the foregoing conclusion, arguing, in essence, that any residual
For example, although the drafters of the Third Restatement have endorsed risk/utility
One of the cited commentators, for example, argues that the consumer expectation test is a
We disagree, however, over how defectiveness is determined.
The question does not appear to have been previously addressed by the Court in the context of
|
