Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.

Decision Date20 June 1932
Docket Number23749.
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesBAXTER v. FORD MOTOR CO. et al.

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; Geo. D. Simpson, Judge.

Action by Sam Baxter against the Ford Motor Company and St. John Motors, a corporation. From a judgment for defendants plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed as to defendant last named, and reversed, with directions to grant a new trial as to defendant first named.

Smith &amp Davies, of Centralia, for appellant.

Battle Hulbert & Helsell, Whittemore & Truscott, and Shank, Belt, Fairbrook & Rode, all of Seattle, and Hull & Murray, of Chehalis, for respondents.

HERMAN J.

During the month of May, 1930, plaintiff purchased a model A Ford town sedan from defendant St. John Motors, a Ford dealer, who had acquired the automobile in question by purchase from defendant Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff claims that representations were made to him by both defendants that the windshield of the automobile was made of nonshatterable glass which would not break, fly, or shatter. October 12, 1930, while plaintiff was driving the automobile through Snoqualmie pass, a pebble from a passing car struck the windshield of the car in question, causing small pieces of glass to fly into plaintiff's left eye, resulting in the loss thereof. Plaintiff brought this action for damages for the loss of his left eye and for injuries to the sight of his right eye. The case came on for trial, and, at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, the court took the case from the jury and entered judgment for both defendants. From that judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Appellant's first assignment of error is: The court erred in allowing the respondents to introduce in evidence, over the objection of appellant, the written contract of agency between the respondents. An investigation of the record discloses that A. C. St. John, the president of St. John Motors, was called as a witness by appellant's counsel, and was questioned with reference to his relationship with respondent Ford Motor Company. On cross-examination by counsel for the Ford Motor Company, this contract was offered in evidence for the purpose of showing the relations between respondents. The ruling was correct.

The second assignment of error is that the court refused to admit in evidence certain catalogues and printed matter furnished by respondent Ford Motor Company to respondent St. John Motors for distribution and assistance in sales. When the car was sold to appellant, a written purchase order was entered into between the seller and the purchaser. Ford Motor Company was not a party to this agreement. Certain reading matter was printed on the back of the purchase contract, which printing purported to tell what constituted the Lincoln Motor Company warranty and the Ford Motor Company warranty. There was nothing in connection with the sales agreement which indicates that either the Lincoln Motor Company warranty or the Ford Motor Company warranty there set forth was made to, or accepted by, appellant or any other person. The instrument in question was devoid of any provision which would have given appellant the right to sue the Lincoln Motor Company or the Ford Motor Company, if privity of contract be a condition precedent to a suit predicated on misrepresentations perpetrated by a manufacturer upon the public, resulting in the sale of products put forth as possessing qualities which the victim of such misrepresentations later discovers, to his damage, were lacking. Hence respondent Ford Motor Company cannot successfully maintain that, so far as appellant is concerned, its warranties to appellant were set forth in the purchase agreement between appellant and the respondent dealer. So far as that respondent St. John Motors is concerned, the written contract limits its responsibility to appellant. The purchase order stated that it contained the entire contract, and there was contained therein the following agreement: 'It is further agreed that no warranty either express or implied is made by the dealer under this order or otherwise covering said car.'

To have permitted the introduction of the testimony in question as against respondent St. John Motors would have been to have countenanced an attempt to vary the terms of the written instrument by parol testimony. Such evidence was not competent against respondent St. John Motors, and there was not sufficient evidence against that respondent to justify submission of the cause to the jury. Judgment was properly entered for respondent St. John Motors.

The principal question in this case is whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit in evidence, as against respondent Ford Motor Company, the catalogues and printed matter furnished by that respondent to respondent St. John Motors to be distributed for sales assistance. Contained in such printed matter were statements which appellant maintains constituted representations or warranties with reference to the nature of the glass used in the windshield of the car purchased by appellant. A typical statement, as it appears in appellant's exhibit for identification No. 1, is here set forth:

'Triplex Shatter-Proof Glass Windshield. All of the new Ford cars have a Triplex shatter-proof glass windshield--so made that it will not fly or shatter under the hardest impact. This is an important safety factor because it eliminates the dangers of flying glass--the cause of most of the injuries in automobile accidents. In these days of crowded, heavy traffic, the use of this Triplex glass is an absolute necessity. Its extra margin of safety is something that every motorist should look for in the purchase of a car--especially where there are women and children.'

Respondent Ford Motor Company contends that there can be no implied or express warranty without privity of contract, and warranties as to personal property do not attach themselves to, and run with, the article sold.

Mazetti v. Armour & Co., 75 Wash. 622, 135 P. 633, 634, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 213, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 140, was a case brought against Armour & Co. by proprietors of a restaurant. The complaint alleged that in the course of their business they purchased from the Seattle Grocery Company a carton of cooked tongue, relying upon the representations of Armour & Co. that its goods were pure, wholesome, and fit food for human beings; that in the center of the carton was a foul, filthy, nauseating, and poisonous substance; that during the due course of trade plaintiffs served one of their patrons a portion of the tongue, the customer ate of it, became sick and nauseated, and proceeded publicly to denounce service of such foul and poisonous food; that the incident became generally known; that plaintiffs had no knowledge of or means of learning the character of the food served; that its condition could not be discovered until it was served for use; and that, as a result thereof, plaintiffs were damaged....

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • Hauter v. Zogarts
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 28 de abril de 1975
    ...dealer who asserts that the windshield of a car is 'shatterproof.' (Rest.2d Torts, § 402B, illus. 1, based on Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. (1932) 168 Wash. 456, 461--463, 12 P.2d 409), or that of a manufacturer who guarantees his product is 'safe' if used as directed (Rest.2d Torts, § 402B, ill......
  • Pabellon v. Grace Line
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 26 de julho de 1951
    ...2 N.E.2d 513, 105 A.L.R. 1497; Schuylerville Wall Paper Co. v. American Mfg. Co., 272 App.Div. 856, 70 N.Y.S.2d 166; Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409, 15 P.2d 1118, 88 A.L.R. 521, with annotation at Dismissal of the first claim, founded upon breach of warranty, appears t......
  • Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 9 de maio de 1960
    ...supra 1571, 1572; also see, 1535; Prosser, supra, 506--511. As far back as 1932, in the well known case of Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409 (Sup.Ct.1932), affirmed 15 P.2d 1118, 88 A.L.R. 521 (Sup.Ct.1932), the Supreme Court of Washington gave recognition to the impact o......
  • Lartigue v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 19 de abril de 1963
    ... ... MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 1916, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A.1916F, 696. When the claim is based on breach of ... Baxter" v. Ford Motor Co., 1932, 168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409, 15 P.2d 1118, 88 A.L. R. 521 ...      \xC2" ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Can Copyright Law Protect People from Sexual Harassment?
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 69-4, 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...(2006). 303. See Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 161 A.2d 69, 83-84 (N.J. 1960) (implied warranty); Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 12 P.2d 409, 412 (Wash. 1932) (express warranty); MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050, 1053 (N.Y. 1916) (negligence). See generally William L. Prosse......
  • Product Liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Model Interrogatories. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • 14 de agosto de 2014
    ...liability in tort. §601.8 Breach of Express Warranty/Misrepresentation Since the landmark decision in Baxter v. Ford Motor Company , 168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409 (1932), product liability may attach if a manufacturer or other participant in the distribution chain breaches an express warranty ......
  • Product Liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Model Interrogatories - Volume 1
    • 1 de abril de 2016
    ...Interrogatories 6-6 §601.8 Breach of Express Warranty/Misrepresentation Since the landmark decision in Baxter v. Ford Motor Company , 168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409 (1932), product liability may attach if a manufacturer or other participant in the distribution chain breaches an express warranty......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT