Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.

Decision Date21 April 1964
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.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

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 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 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 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 all of the possible causes were attributable to defendants. These rulings were erroneous, for plaintiffs were entitled to establish the existence of a defect and defendants' responsibility therefor by circumstantial evidence, particularly when, as in this case, the damage to the car in the collision precluded determining whether or not the master cylinder assembly had been properly installed and adjusted before the accident.

Accordingly, for the purposes of reviewing the nonsuit in favor of Ford and the directed verdict in favor of Maywood Bell on the warranty causes of action, it must be taken as established that when the car was delivered to Vandermark, the master cylinder assemby had a defect that caused the accident. Moreover, since it could reasonably be inferred from the description of the braking system in evidence and the offer of proof of all possible causes of defects that the defect was owing to negligence in design, manufacture, assembly, or adjustment, it must be taken as established that the defect was caused by some such negligence.

Ford contends, however, that it may not be held liable for negligence in manufacturing the car or strictly liable in tort for placing it on the market without proof that the car was defective when Ford reliquished control over it. Ford points out that in this case the car passed through two other authorized Ford dealers before it was sold to Maywood Bell and that Maywood Bell removed the power steering unit before selling the car to Vandermark.

In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 62, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 700, 377 P.2d 897, 900, we held that 'A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.' Since the liability is strict it encompasses defects regardless of their source, and therefore a manufacturer of a completed product cannot escape liability by tracing the defect to a component part supplied by another. (Goldberg v. Kollman Instrument Corp., 12 N.Y.2d 432, 437, 240 N.Y.S.2d 592, 191 N.E.2d 81.) Moreover, even before such strict liability was recognized, the manufacturer of a completed product was subject to vicarious liability for the negligence of his suppliers or subcontractors that resulted in defects in the completed product. (Dow v. Holly Manufacturing Co., 49 Cal.2d 720, 726-727, 321 P.2d 736; Ford Motor Co. v. Mathis, 5 Cir., 322 F.2d 267, 273; Boeing Airplane Co. v. Brown, 9 Cir., 291 F.2d 310, 313; see Rest., Torts, § 400.) These rules focus responsibility for defects, whether negligently or nonnegligently caused, on the manufacturer of the completed product, and they apply regardless of what part of the manufacturing process the manufacturer chooses to delegate to third parties. It appears in the present case that Ford delegates...

To continue reading

Request your trial
362 cases
  • Becker v. IRM Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals 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......
  • Daly v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1978
    ...affect the liability of such intermediate entities in the chain of distribution as retailers (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 263, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168), and bailors (Price v. Shell Oil Co., supra, 2 Cal.3d 245, 253, 85 Cal.Rptr. 178, 466 P.2d 722.) We foresee n......
  • Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., S.F. 23519
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1978
    ...evidence, even when the accident itself precludes identification of the specific defect at fault. (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 260, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168; Culpepper v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 518, 109 Cal.Rptr. 110; Elmore v. Am......
  • Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 2021
    ...themselves." ( Id. at p. 63, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897.)The California Supreme Court extended the doctrine to retailers in Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co . (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168 ( Vandermark ), reasoning, "Retailers like manufacturers are engaged in the busi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 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 Unidentified Wrongdoer
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Law Review (FC Access) No. 56-3, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...defects).190. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 1 (Am. L. Inst. 1998).191. See, e.g., Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 391 P.2d 168, 171-72 (Cal. 1964) (imposing liability on a retailer); Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co., 46 Cal. Rptr. 552, 557 (Ct. App. 1965) (imposing liabilit......
  • The Revival of Respondeat Superior and Evolution of Gatekeeper Liability
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 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......
  • Shepard v. Superior Court - Recovery for Mental Distress in a Products Liability Action
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 2-03, March 1979
    • Invalid date
    ...27 Cal. Rptr. at 701. The court expanded Greenman to impose liability on retail dealers in Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal. 2d 256, 391 P.2d 168, 37 Cal. Rptr. 896 (1964). Vandermark was the first judicial extension beyond Greenman and indicates courts' early willingness to expand prod......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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