o Holdingrule D does have a duty to make things arent defective Cars are

O holdingrule d does have a duty to make things arent

This preview shows page 40 - 42 out of 49 pages.

owe duty to P to inspect wheels even though P was not the immediate purchaser and D did not make the wheels? o Holding/rule : D does have a duty to make things aren’t defective. Cars are potentially dangerous products because if they’re improperly constructed, there’s a good chance people will get hurt. D was responsible for the finished product even if D didn’t make the actual wheels. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno (exploding coke) o Facts : Waitress was putting coke bottles in the fridge, and one exploded, severing nerves, blood vessels, and muscles in her hand. P relied on res ipsa . o Holding / rule : D is liable because they had exclusive control and that P handled it carefully. Also, P did not alter the bottle in any way, so there was no contribution 40 40
Image of page 40
Traynor’s Concurrence: Manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article that he has placed on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection, proves to have a defect that causes injury to human beings. Public policy demands that you hold somebody responsible for the product defects Privity and res ipsa don’t matter; if you made a defective product, you’re liable Implied warranty argument, too o By putting the product on the market, you’re satisfying implied warranty of fitness and merchantability (UCC) Breach of Warranty Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc . (car for wife) o Facts : P buys car for wife and signs agreement waiving all warranties. Less than 500 miles after purchasing it, P’s wife gets in an accident because the steering wheel went out. D says no liability because of disclaimer of implied warranties and lack of privity. o Holding/rule : D is still liable. P has a lack of bargaining power (unconscionable). Lack of privity is immaterial. D has marketed the car and put it into the stream of commerce, so D has a duty to make sure the car is not defective. o Policy : Deprive consumers of their right to assume risk, and instead impose rules upon manufacturers and consumers because it is in the public’s best interest Types of Defects Manufacturing Defects Product leaves manufacturer’s control in an incorrect condition, which is different from the manufacturer’s intent and different from other units of the same product. P must show: A manufacturing defect existed and was present when the product left the hands of the manufacturer; and That more likely than not the defect cause the accident Ford Motor Company v. Gonzalez (tire damage) o Facts: Gonzalez bought a Ford Escort in 1989. There was excessive wear on the right front tire, but the others were all fine. He had the alignment adjusted and the car serviced 10-15 times in 2 years. G was driving in car when it jerked to the right and crashed. Witnesses reported a visible problem with the right front tire. o Holding/rule : Ford is liable. They’re in the business of selling products, and this product was clearly defective.
Image of page 41
Image of page 42

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 49 pages?

  • Fall '07
  • Bernstein
  • Torts

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture