Ford Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 9 S.W.3d 195

Texas Court of Appeals

1999

Chapter

16

Title

Products Liability

Page

655

Topic

Definition of defective

Quick Notes

Manufacturing Defects: Continued tired problems, tire leans and car roles.

Book Name

Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises.  Weaver, Third Edition.  ISBN:  978-1-4224-7220-0.

Issue

o         Whether tire, strut and knuckle area was defective?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         The jury found appellant liable for manufacturing defect, marketing defect, negligence, and deceptive trade violations.

Supreme

o         Affirmed

Facts

Reason

Rules

o         Pl - Gonzalez

o         Df - Ford

What happened?

o         Gonzalez purchased new Escort from a Ford Dealership in Alice Texas.

o         Noticed excessive wear on the outer part of the right front tire.

Brought in for Service

o         He brought his vehicle in for such service between ten and fifteen times during the two years he owned the car.

Accident

o         He and his fiance, and her child, subsequently had an accident when the steering wheel jerked violently, the vehicle swerved to the right, then as he steered back onto the pavement, it rolled over five times.

Witnesses

o         Rodriguez noticed the Escort approaching in a normal manner, then the right front wheel wobbled and leaned to the right. The left front tire was straight, but the right front tire was leaning in the two o'clock position.

o         Trooper Caro said tire tracks might be yaw marks, where their tire is leaning sideways and still spinning.

o         Pl - Expert, Flanagan, Agreed.

Trial Court

o         The jury found appellant liable for manufacturing defect, marketing defect, negligence, and deceptive trade violations.

o         Comparative negligence 80% Ford, and 20% Gonzalez.

Supreme Court

o         Affirmed

Ford Arg front wheel drive

o         The tires should show wear first because the car receives the power of acceleration first.

Ford Arg Passenger seat is empty

o         The passenger seat is often unoccupied, causing the wheel with the lighter load to want to spin faster.

o         However, the front right tire did not show usual wear, because Gonzalez had frequently rotated and replace his tires because of the misalignment problem.

Legal Sufficient

Ford Arg No evidence

o         No evidence that any defect in the Ford Escort caused the Pl - accident.

Court

o         Must indulge every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence in that partys favor.  The challenge is overruled and the finding is unheld.

Ford Arg drew an unsupported causal connection

o         Ford Motor argues that the jury, having heard evidence of abnormal tire wear, drew an unsupported causal connection between tire wear and the strut coming out of the steering knuckle.

Court

o         Ignores testimony supplied by the witnesses about the tire was leaning in a two oclock position before the care left the pavement the first time.

o         Flanagan testified that the relatively undamaged condition of the strut proved that the wheel came loose before the crash.

Ford Arg Expert witnesses

o         Expert witnesses did not offer sufficient explanation of the mechanical relation between the strut and wheel alignment, camber and caster, and off-road tire marks to support a causal connection between misalignment and the resulting accident.

Court

o         Direct proof of a defect is not required.  (Light most favorable to the plaintiff)

o         Flanagan testified that the recurring problem of uneven wear on the outer edge of the Escort's right front tire was caused by a misalignment of the camber and castor, not by a misalignment of the toe-in.

Ford Arg no evidence that misalignment

o         There is no evidence to support an inference that tire alignment or tire wear caused the right front MacPherson strut to pull free from the steering knuckle.

Court

o         Unusual tire wear, however, was not touted as the cause of the accident, rather it evidenced a chronic symptom from which the jury could infer a defective suspension system.

Ford Motor Co. v. Gonzalez :: Class Notes

Manufacturing Defects Case: This was from continued tired problems, which even lead to an accident which caused the car to role 5 times.

Manufacturing Defect

o        Something went wrong in the production of the particular product of issue, and it is substandard

Standard of Review - Court

o         Direct proof of a defect is not required.  (Light most favorable to the plaintiff)

o         In the light most favorable for the reviewing party (Prof said this term at least 5 times!!!)

o         Any evidence probative [furnishing evidence or proof] force to set the finding.

What is the standard of review here?

o        All reasonable inferences must be construed in the light of the winning party As long as there is any evidence which has any probative force The court will affirm VERY DEFERENTIAL REVIEW HERE.  Whenever you have a deferential standard of review (i.e., like with jury verdict review)

Defense to Strict Liability

o         Comparative negligence is a (partial or complete) defense to strict liability. 

o         (Unknowing) Contributory negligence is not a defense.

o         Assumption of the risk is a defense.  (This is like knowing contributory negligence).

Products Liability > Strict Liability

o        Strict liability does not require a specific showing of how the product became defective.

o        The rule that a consumer does not have to show specifically how a product became defective is also based on a consumer's right to receive a safe product from the manufacturer.

o        If the plaintiff has no evidence of a specific design defect or manufacturing defect, he may offer evidence of the product's malfunction as circumstantial proof of the defect.

Rules

Standards of Review

o        To review a no-evidence challenge to the verdict, the appellate court must consider all of the record evidence in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered, and indulge every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence in that party's favor. Under this standard, the appellate court's scope of review extends to all the evidence. Where there is any evidence of probative force to support the finding, the appellate court must overrule the challenge and uphold the finding.

Products Liability > Strict Liability

o        Strict liability does not require a specific showing of how the product became defective.

o        In a classic case in which a consumer found a putrefied big toe in a plug of chewing tobacco, the consumer was not required to prove how the big toe got there or whose toe it was. This rule evolved because a consumer is not in a position to know the manufacturing process and how the defect might have occurred. Thus, an ordinary product user is in no position to come forward with evidence pinpointing the act of negligence responsible for the user's injuries