87 N.Y.2d 248, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250, 662 N.E.2d 730 (1995)
Nancy Denny was severely injured when the Ford Bronco II that she was driving rolled over on June 9, 1986.1 The rollover occurred after Denny slammed on her brakes to avoid a deer that had walked directly into the vehicle's path.2
The Bronco II was a downsized small utility vehicle designed for off-road use on unpaved and rugged terrain.3 Ford marketed the vehicle as suitable for commuting, suburban and city driving, and family use in snow and ice.
Denny and her spouse sued Ford Motor Co. asserting claims for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under UCC 2-314(2)(c) and 2-318. The case went to trial in the District Court for the Northern District of New York in October of 1992.4
Plaintiffs introduced evidence that the Bronco II had a high center of gravity, narrow track width and short wheel base that made it prone to rollover on paved roads. Ford introduced evidence that those design features were necessary to the vehicle's off-road capabilities and that it had not been designed primarily as a passenger car.5
The jury found that the Bronco II was not defective under the strict products liability claim but that Ford had breached the implied warranty of merchantability and that the breach proximately caused Nancy Denny's injuries.6 Following apportionment the plaintiff was awarded judgment in the amount of $1.2 million.7
Ford moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) arguing that the verdicts were irreconcilable.8 The trial court rejected the motion.9 On appeal the Second Circuit certified three questions of New York law to this Court.10
Whether the strict products liability claim and the breach of implied warranty claim are identical?11
The causes of action for strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of merchantability are not identical in New York.12 The core element of defect is subtly different in the two causes of action.13 Under New York law a design defect may be actionable under a strict products liability theory if the product is not reasonably safe.14 This requires an assessment of whether if the design defect were known at the time of manufacture a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner.15 The assessment considers factors such as the product's utility to the public the likelihood that the product will cause injury the availability of a safer design and the manufacturer's ability to spread the cost of any safety-related design changes.16 The UCC concept of a defective product requires an inquiry only into whether the product was fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.17 This focuses on the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary usual and reasonably foreseeable manners without regard to the feasibility of alternative designs or the manufacturer's reasonableness in marketing it in that unsafe condition.18
No. The jury found that the Bronco II was not defective under the strict products liability claim but that Ford had breached the implied warranty of merchantability awarding plaintiffs $1.2 million. The evidence presented at trial showed that the Bronco II had a high center of gravity narrow track width and short wheel base making it prone to rollover accidents on paved roads.19 Plaintiffs also presented Ford marketing materials indicating the vehicle was suitable for everyday driving and suburban commuting.20 Ford presented evidence that the design was necessary for off-road capabilities.21
This evidence allowed the jury to rationally conclude that while the vehicle's utility as an off-road vehicle outweighed the risk of rollover it was not safe for the ordinary purpose of daily driving for which it was marketed and sold.22
The strict products liability claim and the breach of implied warranty claim are not identical.23
Related opinions on this issue
Judge Simons agrees that the causes of action in strict products liability and breach of implied warranty are not identical.24 However he argues that the strict products liability claim is substantively broader than and encompasses the implied warranty claim.25 In his view the jury's verdict of no defect in the products liability cause of action is not reconcilable with its finding of breach of implied warranty.26
Both require establishing that the product was defective.27 The definitions lead to the conclusion that if it was not defective for strict liability it could not be for warranty.28
Whether if the claims are different the strict products liability claim is broader than the implied warranty claim and encompasses the latter?29
If the claims are different the strict products liability claim is not broader than the implied warranty claim and does not encompass the latter.30 The strict products liability theory requires a risk utility balancing that considers the manufacturer's conduct and policy factors.31 The implied warranty focuses on consumer expectations for ordinary purposes without regard to feasibility of alternative designs or the manufacturer's reasonableness.32
No. The jury's finding that the Bronco II was not defective under strict products liability but breached implied warranty demonstrates that the warranty claim can succeed where strict liability fails.33 The facts show that the ordinary purpose for which the product was marketed was daily driving separate from its off-road utility.34 This allows different conclusions under the two standards.35 The evidence of marketing for suburban use and the design features affecting paved road stability supported a finding of unfitness for ordinary purposes even if the risk utility balance favored the off-road design.36
The strict products liability claim is not broader than the implied warranty claim.37
Whether if the claims are different and a strict liability claim may fail while an implied warranty claim succeeds the jury's finding of no product defect is reconcilable with its finding of a breach of warranty?38
If the claims are different and a strict liability claim may fail while an implied warranty claim succeeds the jury's finding of no product defect is reconcilable with its finding of a breach of warranty.3940 Under the evidence a rational fact finder could have simultaneously concluded that the Bronco II's utility as an off-road vehicle outweighed the risk of injury resulting from rollover accidents.41 The vehicle was not safe for the ordinary purpose of daily driving for which it was marketed and sold.42 This leads to the legal conclusion that the strict products liability cause of action was not viable but that the defendant should nevertheless be held liable for breach of its implied promise that the Bronco II was merchantable or fit for its ordinary purpose.43
Yes. The jury found that the Bronco II was not defective under the strict products liability claim but that Ford had breached the implied warranty of merchantability awarding plaintiffs $1.2 million.44 The evidence presented at trial showed that the Bronco II had a high center of gravity narrow track width and short wheel base making it prone to rollover accidents on paved roads. Plaintiffs also presented Ford marketing materials indicating the vehicle was suitable for everyday driving and suburban commuting.
Ford presented evidence that the design was necessary for off-road capabilities. This evidence allowed the jury to rationally conclude that while the vehicle's utility as an off-road vehicle outweighed the risk of rollover it was not safe for the ordinary purpose of daily driving for which it was marketed and sold.
The jury's finding of no product defect is reconcilable with its finding of a breach of warranty.
Related opinions on this issue
Judge Simons dissents on this point.45 He argues that the jury's verdict cannot be sustained because it is irreconcilably inconsistent.46 He maintains that the jury found the Bronco II was not defective for purposes of negligence and strict products liability.47
That finding necessarily means the vehicle was reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable uses.48 Thus it must have been fit for the ordinary purposes for which such vehicles are used leaving no room for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.49