it must be presumed that when the vehicle was delivered to Vandermark by

It must be presumed that when the vehicle was

This preview shows page 91 - 93 out of 102 pages.

it must be presumed that when the vehicle was delivered to Vandermark by Maywood Bell, the piston inthe master cylinder assembly already had the defect which subsequently caused the accident. Such adefect was likely caused by some negligence on the part of Ford. However, Ford argues that itrelinquished control of the vehicle when it was delivered to Maywood Bell and thus may notbe held liable for negligence or strictly liable just for putting the vehicle into themarketplace. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 377 P.2d 897, 900 (Cal. 1963), the court heldthat “a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it isto be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a humanbeing.” These rules for strict liability focus responsibility for defects, whether negligentlycaused or not, upon the manufacturer of the completed product and apply regardless ofwhat part of the process the manufacturer may delegate to a third party.Here, Ford statesthat it does not deliver its cars to authorized dealers ready to be driven off the lot. Instead, Ford relieson the dealers to make the final inspections, corrections, and adjustments necessary to ensure that thevehicles are ready to be driven. Ford cannot delegate its duty to Maywood Bell to ensure that avehicle is free from dangerous defects. Therefore, it cannot escape liability by arguing thatthe dealer is at fault for resulting injuries due to a vehicle defect. Because Vandermarkintroduced, or offered to introduce, evidence that showed that Ford delivered a vehicle to Maywood Bellwith a defect, the trial court erred in dismissing the breach of warranty and negligence causes of actionas to Ford. Additionally, Vandermark argues that Maywood Bell is also strictly liable for the injuriessustained. like manufacturers, retailers are engaged in the business of distributing goods intothe public marketplace and are an integral part of ensuring that products do not result ininjuries to consumers. The imposition of strict liability upon a retailer, as well as amanufacturer, provides protection to an injured plaintiff and allows the ability to distributethe costs of such protection in the course of business.Cours: -In products liability under negligence oNeed to show defect du to unreasonable care that caused harm -So what SL does > only to show defect. -Here multiple possible source of defects. Series of pb (quite similar to res ipsa). -Court uses a kind of res ipsa argument here. -An exception to that would for ex be that the car was old etc > multiple competing cause. Therebecome harder for the P to show a defect due to manufacturer. -This allow the P to go directly against manufacturer. 91
-Moreover, Ford cannot get out of it bc no privity (do not care about it) + dealer is part of the wayford sells cars. So he has responsibility for all. We can sue dealer and the manufacturer (contractcome back in the picture) > multiple integrated distribution chain.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture