For Your Data Vandermark V. Ford Motor Co. Representative Brief
September 16, 2019
Edit
Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. case brief summary
391 P.2d 168 (1964)
CASE FACTS
Six weeks later purchasing his novel automobile from the dealer, the buyer lost command of the automobile together with collided amongst a low-cal post. Plaintiffs claimed that at that spot was a precipitous failure of the car's braking system. The manufacturer had delegated the finally steps of its procedure to the dealer together with relied on the dealer to brand the finally inspections together with adjustments necessary for the automobile to last laid for use.
PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe trial courtroom granted the manufacturer's motility for nonsuit, directed a verdict inward favor of the dealer on the warranty action, together with entered judgment on a jury verdict for the dealer on the negligence action.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the nonsuit granted inward favor of the manufacturer. The courtroom too reversed the judgment for the dealer on the warranty causes of activeness but affirmed the judgment inward favor of the dealer on the negligence causes of action.
Suggested constabulary schoolhouse report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
391 P.2d 168 (1964)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiffs, a buyer together with his sister, brought an activeness alleging breach of warranty together with negligence against defendants, an automobile manufacturer together with an automobile dealer, for personal injuries they sustained inward an accident allegedly caused past times defects inward a novel car. Plaintiffs appealed from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California).CASE FACTS
Six weeks later purchasing his novel automobile from the dealer, the buyer lost command of the automobile together with collided amongst a low-cal post. Plaintiffs claimed that at that spot was a precipitous failure of the car's braking system. The manufacturer had delegated the finally steps of its procedure to the dealer together with relied on the dealer to brand the finally inspections together with adjustments necessary for the automobile to last laid for use.
PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe trial courtroom granted the manufacturer's motility for nonsuit, directed a verdict inward favor of the dealer on the warranty action, together with entered judgment on a jury verdict for the dealer on the negligence action.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the courtroom concluded that it was mistake to grant nonsuit on issues of strict liability together with negligence against the manufacturer together with to at nowadays a verdict for the dealer.
- The courtroom held that the manufacturer could last strictly liable inward tort together with could non delegate its duty to deliver cars costless from defects.
- The courtroom extended the doctrine of strict liability to the dealer because it was inward the describe of piece of occupation concern of selling cars, ane of which proved to last defective.
- Although plaintiffs had proceeded nether a warranty theory, they introduced substantial evidence to constitute strict liability inward tort.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the nonsuit granted inward favor of the manufacturer. The courtroom too reversed the judgment for the dealer on the warranty causes of activeness but affirmed the judgment inward favor of the dealer on the negligence causes of action.
Suggested constabulary schoolhouse report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.