Product Defect Case Series

Ward v. Ford Motor Co., 99 Nev. 47, 657 P.2d 95 (1983).

Product: 1977 Ford Maverick

Injury: Paraplegia

Mechanism of Injury: At 50 mph, the vehicle began to vibrate, causing the plaintiff's brake to suddenly engage and for plaintiff to lose control of the vehicle.

Nature of Defect:

Jury Verdict: Defendant

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories:

Result:

Case Quotes:

The fifth section of the instruction is a correct statement of the law in Nevada. For example, in General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366 (1972), we held:

We have heretofore held that a defective product is dangerous if it fails to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in the light of its nature and intended function. Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970). Beyond that a product being defective gives rise to strict tort liability even though faultlessly made if it was unreasonably dangerous for the manufacturer or supplier to place that product in the hands of a user ... (Emphasis added.)

Id. 88 Nev. at 364, 498 P.2d 366. Accord, Outboard Marine Corp. v. Schupbach, 93 Nev. 158, 561 P.2d 450 (1977). We therefore hold that the district court did not err in giving the fifth section of Jury Instruction ### 4.

Ward v. Ford Motor Co., 99 Nev. 47, 48–49, 657 P.2d 95, 96 (1983)

Through this appeal, appellant really seems to be urging us to adopt what she considers the enlightened view of strict liability as expressed in Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 8 Cal.3d 121, 104 Cal.Rptr. 433, 501 P.2d 1153 (1972). There, the California Supreme Court rejected the concept that a defective condition must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer in order to be actionable. After reviewing our previous decision, as well as other cases and authorities on this subject, we decline to adopt the minority position of Cronin and we reaffirm our belief that the plaintiff must prove that the product is unreasonably dangerous. This hardly detracts from the sound public policy favoring the strict products liability doctrine. A plaintiff need only prove that the product failed to perform “in the manner reasonably to be expected in the light of its nature and intended function.” General Electric Co. v. Bush, supra. Or, in the language of the subject instruction, that the product “is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.”

Ward v. Ford Motor Co., 99 Nev. 47, 49, 657 P.2d 95, 96 (1983)