Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtTRAYNOR; GIBSON
Citation391 P.2d 168,37 Cal.Rptr. 896,61 Cal.2d 256
Parties, 391 P.2d 168 Chester M. VANDERMARK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, L. A. 27674.
Decision Date21 April 1964

Page 896

37 Cal.Rptr. 896
61 Cal.2d 256, 391 P.2d 168
Chester M. VANDERMARK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents,
L. A. 27674.
Supreme Court of California, In Bank.
April 21, 1964.

Page 897

[391 P.2d 169] [61 Cal.2d 258] Edward L. Lascher, Oxnard, and Donald C. Lozano, Encino, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Eugene P. Fay, Edward I. Pollock and Pollock, Pollock & Fay, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs and appellants.

Dryden, Harrington, Horgan & Swartz, Vernon G. Foster, Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

TRAYNOR, Justice.

In October 1958 plaintiff Chester Vandermark bought a new Ford automobile from defendant Lorimer Diesel Engine Company, an authorized Ford dealer doing business as Maywood Bell Ford. About six weeks later, while driving on the San Bernardino Freeway, he lost control of the car. It went off the highway to the right and collided with a light post. He and his sister, plaintiff Mary Tresham, suffered serious injuries. They brought this action for damages against Maywood Bell Ford and the Ford Motor Company, which manufactured and assembled the car. They pleaded causes of action for breach of warranty and negligence. The trial court granted Ford's motion for a nonsuit on all causes of action and directed a verdict in favor of Maywood Bell on [61 Cal.2d 259] the warranty causes of action. The jury returned a verdict for Maywood Bell on the negligence causes of action, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. Plaintiffs appeal.

Vandermark and driven the car approximately 1500 miles before the accident. 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. He testified that the car operated normally before the accident except once when he was driving home from Joshua Tree. He was in the left-hand west-bound lane of the San Bernardino Freeway when traffic ahead slowed. He applied the brakes and the car 'started to make a little dive to the right and continued on across the two lanes of traffic till she hit the shoulder. Whatever it was then let go and I was able to then pull her back into the road.' He drove home without further difficulty, but before using the car again, he took it to Maywood Bell for the regular 1000-mile new car servicing. He testified that he described the freeway incident to Maywood Bell's service attendant, but Maywood Bell's records do not indicate that any complaint was made.

After the car was serviced, Vandermark drove it in town on short trips totaling approximately 300 miles. He and his sister then set out on another trip to Joshua Tree. He testified that 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. * * * I tried to pull back, but it didn't seem to come, so I applied my brakes gently to see if I could straighten her up, but I couldn't seem to pull her back to the left. So, I let off on the brakes and she continued to the right, and I tried again to put on the brakes and she wouldn't come back, and all of a sudden this pole was in front of me and we smashed into it.' Plaintiff Tresham testified to a substantially similar version of the accident. A witness for plaintiffs, who was driving above 200 feet behind them, testified that plaintiffs' car was in the right-hand lane when he saw its taillights come on. The car started

Page 898

[391 P.2d 170] to swerve and finally skidded into the light post. An investigating officer testified that there were skid marks leading from the highway to the car.

Plaintiffs called an expert on the operation of hydraulic automobile brakes. 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. It was his opinion that the brakes applied themselves[61 Cal.2d 260] owing to a failure of the piston in the master cylinder to retract far enough when the brake pedal was released to uncover a bypass port through which hydraulic fluid should have been able to escape into a reservoir above the master cylinder. Failure of the piston to uncover the bypass port led to a closed system and a partial application of the brakes, which in turn led to heating that expanded the brake fluid until the brakes applied themselves with such force that Vandermark lost control of the car. 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 fire wall, or improper assembly or adjustment. The trial court struck the testimony of the possible causes to 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, and it rejected plaintiffs' offer to prove that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
364 practice notes
  • O'Neil v. Crane Co., No. S177401.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 12, 2012
    ...and marketing enterprise,” they too should bear the cost of injuries from defective products. ( Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168; see also Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 130, 104 Cal.Rptr. 433, 501 P.2d 1153 [listing o......
  • Jimenez v. Superior Court, No. S091453.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 4, 2002
    ...those harmed by defective products. (Id. at p. 63, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897.) The next year, in Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 37 Cal. Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168 (Vandermark), we extended strict products liability to retailers. We said: "Retailers like manufacturers a......
  • Becker v. IRM Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 1983
    ...as an "integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise" for the product in question. (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168; Tauber-Arons, supra, at p. 275, 161 Cal.Rptr. 789.) Thus, participation in the marketing enterprise b......
  • Johnson v. U.S. Steel Corp., A142485
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 2015
    ...product cannot escape liability by tracing the defect to a component part supplied by another.” (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 261, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168.) But the seller of a component part is not strictly liable for any defect in the completed product but onl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
364 cases
  • O'Neil v. Crane Co., S177401.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 12, 2012
    ...and marketing enterprise,” they too should bear the cost of injuries from defective products. ( Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168; see also Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 130, 104 Cal.Rptr. 433, 501 P.2d 1153 [listing o......
  • Jimenez v. Superior Court, S091453.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 4, 2002
    ...those harmed by defective products. (Id. at p. 63, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897.) The next year, in Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 37 Cal. Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168 (Vandermark), we extended strict products liability to retailers. We said: "Retailers like manufacturers a......
  • Becker v. IRM Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 1983
    ...as an "integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise" for the product in question. (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168; Tauber-Arons, supra, at p. 275, 161 Cal.Rptr. 789.) Thus, participation in the marketing enterprise b......
  • Johnson v. U.S. Steel Corp., A142485
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 2015
    ...product cannot escape liability by tracing the defect to a component part supplied by another.” (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 261, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168.) But the seller of a component part is not strictly liable for any defect in the completed product but onl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Products liability and commercial sales
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...Look Sports (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 1715, 1747, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 781). • Cars with defective brakes ( Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 256, 261, 37 Cal. Rptr. 896). No manufacturing defect exists for “diet” sodas simply because they do not cause weight loss. Becerra v. Dr. Pep......
  • The Revival of Respondeat Superior and Evolution of Gatekeeper Liability
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal Nbr. 109-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...Because many large businesses are heavily regulated by federal statute today, those restraints 183. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 391 P.2d 168, 172 (Cal. 1964); Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 377 P.2d 897, 900 (Cal. 1963). 184. Mark A. Geistfeld, A Roadmap for Autonomous Vehicles: Sta......
  • Amazon Marketplace and Third-Party Sellers: The Battle over Strict Product Liability.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 54 Nbr. 1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...442 (Traynor, J., concurring) (describing reasons for developing first strict product liability precedent); Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 391 P.2d 168, 172 (Cal. 1964) (arguing spreading loss minimizes liability burden on manufacturer and retailer); see also Bullard, supra note 3, at 187-88......

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