Part 4- Sales, Chapter 20: Product Liability, Doc 10

Summary of Product Liability 557-560 (Wilke v. Woodhouse Ford Inc. and Green v. Ford Motor Co.) Wilke v. Woodhouse Ford, Inc.: Key Findings on Negligence and Implied Warranty 1. Proximate Cause and Contributory Negligence: o Woodhouse argued that Mark Wilke’s failure to set the parking brake and the daughter’s manipulation of the gearshift were the proximate causes of the accident, aiming to absolve itself of liability. o However, the court distinguished between proximate cause and contributory negligence, asserting that the jury should decide if Mark's actions or the daughter’s involvement were foreseeable events rather than an intervening cause that would release Woodhouse from liability. 2. Duty of Inspection for Used Car Dealers: o The court ruled that used car dealers must inspect for obvious (patent) safety defects prior to sale. This duty is independent of any warranty disclaimer, as tort liability is based on a legal obligation to prevent foreseeable harm, not on contractual representations. 3. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: o The Act restricts sellers’ abilities to disclaim warranties on consumer goods when providing either a full or limited warranty. If a limited warranty is offered, sellers may limit implied warranties to the duration of the limited warranty as long as it is conspicuously presented and not unconscionable. 4. Outcome: o The court upheld Woodhouse's disclaimer of implied warranty of merchantability but reversed the summary judgment regarding negligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings on whether Woodhouse breached its duty to inspect for safety. Green v. Ford Motor Co.: Comparative Fault in Crashworthiness Claims 1. Background and Claim: o Nicholas Green sued Ford, alleging that the vehicle's restraint system was defective (not crashworthy), which exacerbated his injuries in an accident. Ford argued that Green’s own negligence in causing the accident should be considered in determining liability for the “enhanced” injuries under Indiana’s comparative fault rules. 2. Crashworthiness Doctrine: o This legal principle requires manufacturers to design vehicles with reasonable safety measures, acknowledging the statistical likelihood of accidents. Under crashworthiness, manufacturers are liable for injuries caused by design defects that contribute to injury severity, distinct from the original cause of the accident. 3. Comparative Fault Application: o The Indiana Supreme Court found that comparative fault principles apply to crashworthiness claims under the Indiana Product Liability Act, as Indiana law mandates that a plaintiff’s contributory negligence must factor into liability determination. Thus, Green's role in causing the initial accident was relevant to apportioning fault in his enhanced injury claim. 4. Outcome: o The court affirmed that the finder of fact should consider the plaintiff's comparative fault in crashworthiness cases, acknowledging that this approach aligns with the intent of Indiana's product liability and comparative fault statutes. Summary of Comparative Fault in Product Liability   Comparative fault allows for damages to be apportioned based on the relative fault of the plaintiff and defendant, moving away from traditional all-or-nothing defenses (product misuse, assumption of risk, contributory negligence). This principle, increasingly adopted across states, permits the plaintiff’s damages to be reduced according to their degree of fault, enhancing fairness in situations where both parties may have contributed to the harm experienced.