61 Cal.2d 256 [37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168]
In October 1958, plaintiff Chester Vandermark bought a new Ford automobile from defendant Lorimer Diesel Engine Company, doing business as Maywood Bell Ford, an authorized Ford dealer.1 About six weeks later, while driving on the San Bernardino Freeway, he lost control of the car.2 It went off the highway to the right and collided with a light post.3 Vandermark and his sister, plaintiff Mary Tresham, suffered serious injuries.4
Vandermark had driven the car approximately 1,500 miles before the accident.5 He used it primarily in town but drove it on two occasions from his home in Huntington Park to Joshua Tree in San Bernardino County.6 He testified that the car operated normally before the accident except once when he was driving home from Joshua Tree.7 He was in the left-hand westbound lane of the San Bernardino Freeway when traffic ahead slowed.8 He applied the brakes and the car started to make a little dive to the right.9 It continued on across the two lanes of traffic till she hit the shoulder.10 Whatever it was then let go and he was able to pull her back into the road.11 He drove home without further difficulty.12 He took the car to Maywood Bell for the regular 1,000-mile new car servicing before using it again.13 He described the freeway incident to Maywood Bell’s service attendant.14 Maywood Bell’s records do not indicate that any complaint was made.15
After the car was serviced, Vandermark drove it in town on short trips totaling approximately 300 miles.16 He and his sister then set out on another trip to Joshua Tree.17 While driving in the right-hand lane of the freeway at about 45 to 50 miles per hour, the car started to make a little shimmy or weave and started pulling to the right.18 Vandermark tried to pull back but could not.19 He applied his brakes gently to see if he could straighten her up but could not pull her back to the left.20 He let off on the brakes and she continued to the right.21 He tried again to put on the brakes and she would not come back.22 All of a sudden this pole was in front of him and they smashed into it.23 Plaintiff Tresham testified to a substantially similar version of the accident.24 A witness for plaintiffs who was driving about 200 feet behind them testified that plaintiffs’ car was in the right-hand lane when he saw its taillights come on.25 The car started to swerve and finally skidded into the light post.26 An investigating officer testified that there were skid marks leading from the highway to the car.27
Plaintiffs called an expert on the operation of hydraulic automobile brakes.28 In answer to hypothetical questions based on evidence in the record and his own knowledge of the braking system of the car, the expert testified as to the cause of the accident.29 It was his opinion that the brakes applied themselves owing to a failure of the piston in the master cylinder to retract far enough when the brake pedal was released.30 Hydraulic fluid should have been able to escape into a reservoir above the master cylinder through the bypass port.31 The expert also testified that the failure of the piston to retract sufficiently to uncover the bypass port could have been caused by dirt in the master cylinder, a defective or wrong-sized part, distortion of the firewall, or improper assembly or adjustment.32 The trial court struck the testimony of the possible causes of the failure of the piston to retract on the ground that there was no direct evidence that any one or more of the causes existed.33 Plaintiffs brought this action for damages against Maywood Bell Ford and Ford Motor Company.34 They pleaded causes of action for breach of warranty and negligence.35 The trial court granted Ford’s motion for a nonsuit on all causes of action.36 The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Maywood Bell on the warranty causes of action.37 The jury returned a verdict for Maywood Bell on the negligence causes of action.38 Plaintiffs appeal.39
Whether Ford Motor Company may be held strictly liable in tort or liable for negligence for a defect in a car that passed through authorized dealers before sale to the plaintiff?40
A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.41 Since the liability is strict it encompasses defects regardless of their source.42 Therefore a manufacturer of a completed product cannot escape liability by tracing the defect to a component part supplied by another.43 These rules focus responsibility for defects, whether negligently or nonnegligently caused, on the manufacturer of the completed product.44 They apply regardless of what part of the manufacturing process the manufacturer chooses to delegate to third parties.45
Yes. For purposes of review it must be taken as established that when the car was delivered to Vandermark the master cylinder assembly had a defect that caused the accident.46 It must also be taken as established that the defect was caused by some negligence in design, manufacture, assembly, or adjustment.47 Ford as the manufacturer of the completed product cannot delegate its duty to have its cars delivered to the ultimate purchaser free from dangerous defects.48
This is true even though the car passed through two other authorized Ford dealers before it was sold to Maywood Bell and even though Maywood Bell removed the power steering unit before selling the car to Vandermark.49
Ford Motor Company may be held strictly liable in tort and liable for negligence.50
Whether a retailer such as Maywood Bell Ford is strictly liable in tort for personal injuries caused by defects in cars it sells?51
Retailers like manufacturers are engaged in the business of distributing goods to the public.52 They are an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise that should bear the cost of injuries resulting from defective products.53 Strict liability on the manufacturer and retailer alike affords maximum protection to the injured plaintiff and works no injustice to the defendants.54 They can adjust the costs of such protection between them in the course of their continuing business relationship.55
Yes. Maywood Bell is a retailer engaged in the business of distributing goods to the public.56 It is therefore strictly liable in tort for personal injuries caused by defects in cars sold by it.57 The car sold to Vandermark had a defect that caused the accident.58 Retailers may be the only member of the enterprise reasonably available to the injured plaintiff.59 The retailer’s strict liability serves as an added incentive to safety.60
A retailer such as Maywood Bell Ford is strictly liable in tort for personal injuries caused by defects in cars it sells.61
Whether a retailer's contractual disclaimer of warranty liability or the lack of timely notice of breach bars recovery on a strict tort liability theory against the retailer?62
Since Maywood Bell is strictly liable in tort the fact that it restricted its contractual liability to Vandermark is immaterial.63 Regardless of the obligations it assumed by contract it is subject to strict liability in tort because it is in the business of selling automobiles.64 One of which proved to be defective and caused injury to human beings.65 The requirement of timely notice of breach of warranty is not applicable to such tort liability just as it is not applicable to tort liability based on negligence.66
No. The warranty clause in the contract with Vandermark that disclaimed liability for personal injuries is immaterial.67 The lack of timely notice of breach of warranty does not bar recovery.68 Strict liability in tort is independent of the contractual warranty.69 Maywood Bell is subject to strict liability in tort because it is in the business of selling automobiles.70
One of those automobiles proved to be defective and caused injury to human beings.71 The requirement of timely notice is not applicable to such tort liability just as it is not applicable to tort liability based on negligence.72
A retailer's contractual disclaimer of warranty liability or the lack of timely notice of breach does not bar recovery on a strict tort liability theory against the retailer.73
Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings or in presenting the negligence causes of action against Maywood Bell Ford to the jury?74
No. The trial court’s rulings on the expert testimony were erroneous for the warranty claims.77 However the issue of Maywood Bell’s liability for negligence was fully litigated.78 Although the evidence was in sharp conflict no prejudicial error occurred in presenting the negligence causes of action to the jury. The judgment in favor of Maywood Bell on the negligence causes of action is therefore affirmed.79
The trial court did not commit prejudicial error in presenting the negligence causes of action against Maywood Bell Ford to the jury.80