Part 4- Sales, Chapter 20: Product Liability, Doc 12

Product Liability Case Problem Summaries and Analyses 1. Brian Felley vs. Singletons (Express Warranty in Sale of Used Car) o Issue: Did the Singletons’ statement that the car was in "good mechanical condition" and had "no brake problems" constitute an express warranty? o Analysis: An express warranty can arise from affirmations that form part of the basis of the bargain. Given that Felley relied on these statements when purchasing the car, a court could view them as an express warranty, especially as the car soon exhibited major issues with the clutch and brakes, contradicting the assurances provided. o Conclusion: The trial court found an express warranty, which the Singletons breached, justifying Felley’s award for repair costs. The appellate court likely upheld this interpretation. 2. Hilda Forbes vs. Car Manufacturer (Express Warranty for Airbag Deployment) o Issue: Did the “hard enough” collision statement in the owner’s manual constitute an express warranty for airbag deployment? o Analysis: An express warranty requires clear, factual affirmations. Since Forbes relied on this statement for safety assurance, and if the collision was deemed "hard enough" by expert testimony but the airbag failed to deploy, a breach of express warranty could be established. o Conclusion: If the manual’s language constituted an express warranty, and the airbag’s failure was inconsistent with it, the manufacturer could be liable. 3. Steven Taterka vs. Ford (Implied Warranty of Merchantability in Used Car’s Taillight Assembly) o Issue: Is Ford liable under the implied warranty of merchantability for a known defect in the taillight assembly, causing water damage? o Analysis: Merchantability requires that goods be fit for ordinary use. If the assembly defect is common and known, Ford’s failure to correct it may violate this warranty. o Conclusion: Ford may be liable under the implied warranty, as the defect compromised the car’s ordinary use by causing progressive rusting. 4. Yong Cha Hong vs. Marriott (Implied Warranty of Merchantability for Restaurant Food) o Issue: Did the presence of an inedible object (chicken’s aorta or trachea) breach the implied warranty of merchantability? o Analysis: Courts apply either the "reasonable expectation" test (expectation that food is safe and edible) or the "foreign-natural" test (only non-natural objects breach warranty). The reasonable expectation test likely applies here. Conclusion: If the court determined consumers reasonably expect boneless chicken to be free of such parts, Marriott may be liable. If applying the foreign-natural test, Marriott might avoid liability. Bako vs. Crystal and DW (Implied Warranties in Defective Stain Application) o Issue: Were Crystal and DW liable for breaches of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness when the lacquer-based stain damaged the Bakos' flooring? o Analysis: Merchantability requires suitability for ordinary purposes, and fitness for a particular purpose applies if the seller knew the intended use. Crystal’s lack of labels and instructions could fail both standards, especially for lacquer incompatible with polyurethane. o Conclusion: The appellate court likely upheld liability for breaching both warranties, as DW and Crystal’s failure to disclose the lacquer base led to the flooring damage. Connie Daniell vs. Ford (Negligent Design and Failure to Warn for Trunk Safety) o Issue: Was Ford negligent in failing to design an internal trunk release or warn users of entrapment risks? o Analysis: Negligence in product design considers the foreseeability of harm and cost-benefit of safer alternatives. Given suicide as an unlikely use, Daniell’s claim may lack foreseeability, and Ford’s duty to warn about a non-standard risk could be questionable. o Conclusion: Ford is unlikely to be liable, as the design and warning did not foresee Daniell’s specific use case. Donald Malen vs. MTD Products and Home Depot (Negligence and Strict Liability for Mower Injury) o Issue: Did Malen’s failure to disengage the mower blade or turn off the engine absolve the manufacturer of liability? o Analysis: Since Malen failed to follow safety instructions and neither defect (OPC or NCR) was identified during prior use, his actions are likely deemed the primary cause. o Conclusion: The court’s summary judgment for the defendants appears appropriate, as Malen’s negligence superseded any manufacturing fault. Chefik Simo vs. Mitsubishi (Strict Liability in SUV Rollover) o Issue: Can Simo establish Mitsubishi’s strict liability for injuries from the SUV rollover, despite inherent SUV risks? o Analysis: Strict liability requires showing the design was unreasonably dangerous. Evidence of the SUV's high rollover risk and severe injuries could support Simo’s claim, though proving causation is challenging. o Conclusion: If Simo demonstrates an unsafe design exacerbated by defect rather than inherent risk, he may recover damages, including lost soccer career potential if directly attributable. o 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. David Dobrovolny vs. Ford (Timeliness of Product Liability Claims for Truck Fire) o Issue: Are Dobrovolny’s warranty, negligence, and strict liability claims barred due to filing delays? o Analysis: Claims must meet statutes of limitations (warranty claims may expire sooner than negligence or strict liability). Without injury or external property damage, Ford may argue Dobrovolny lacks standing. o Conclusion: Ford’s motion to dismiss likely succeeded on timeliness and lack of qualifying harm grounds. 10.Matthew Kovach vs. Cup Defendants (Negligence in Medicine Measurement)    Issue: Are the Cup Defendants liable for unclear measurement markings that may have contributed to improper dosing? Analysis: Liability in negligence may hinge on whether poor design (unclear graduations) made the cup unreasonably dangerous, impacting proper medication dosing. Conclusion: If unclear graduations are deemed a design flaw that foreseeably risks overdose, the Cup Defendants may be liable for resulting harm.