In product liability law, plaintiffs often sue under both strict products liability and breach of implied warranty. In Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995), the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a manufacturer could be held liable under one theory but not the other. The court clarified that the two causes of action are distinct and can lead to different outcomes based on the facts presented. The decision offered guidance for product liability lawsuits in New York.
Background Facts
In 1986, Nancy Denny was injured when her Ford Bronco II rolled over while she was trying to avoid hitting a deer. Denny and her husband filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. They claimed that the vehicle’s design made it more likely to roll over, and that Ford breached the implied warranty of merchantability and was strictly liable for the design defect.
At trial, the plaintiffs introduced evidence that small utility vehicles like the Bronco II had a greater tendency to roll over than ordinary cars. The Bronco II had a high center of gravity, narrow track width, short wheel base, and suspension features that reduced its stability on paved roads. Ford countered that the vehicle was intended for off-road use and that the design was suitable for such conditions.
Despite that, the plaintiffs produced Ford’s marketing materials indicating that the vehicle was promoted as useful for city and suburban driving. These materials claimed the Bronco II was attractive to families and women concerned about winter driving. The Dennys testified that they bought the Bronco II for its four-wheel-drive capabilities in bad weather—not for off-road purposes.
Question Before the Court
The court was asked to decide whether the strict products liability and breach of implied warranty claims are identical under New York law. If not, it needed to decide whether a plaintiff could win on a warranty theory even if the strict products liability claim failed.
Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeals held that the claims were not identical. The court stated that a product may be considered not “reasonably safe” under strict products liability only after weighing the risk and utility of its design. This risk/utility analysis is similar to negligence.
On the other hand, breach of implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code focuses on whether the product was fit for its ordinary use. Under this theory, a plaintiff does not need to prove that the manufacturer acted unreasonably or that a safer design was feasible.
The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the Bronco II was not defective under the strict products liability standard, but still unfit for its ordinary purpose under the implied warranty standard. Since the jury in this case did exactly that, the court concluded that the verdicts were not legally inconsistent.
Discussion
This decision clarified that strict liability and implied warranty claims are not the same. Strict liability in design defect cases asks whether the manufacturer should have sold the product in light of its risks and benefits. That question often depends on technical evidence and competing views about safety, performance, and cost. It involves considering whether a reasonable person would market the product in that form, knowing the risks.
In contrast, a warranty claim is about whether the product did what buyers expected it to do. The warranty of merchantability guarantees that a product will be fit for its ordinary purpose. This standard does not require proof of negligence or consideration of design trade-offs. It reflects the buyer’s expectations.
The court explained that warranty law comes from contract principles, while strict products liability is based in tort law. Warranty claims center on the buyer’s disappointed expectations. Strict liability focuses on social policy and the risks a manufacturer imposes on the public.
In this case, the court found that the Bronco II may have passed the strict liability test because its off-road features justified the design. But the jury could still find that it failed to meet the ordinary expectations of a suburban driver. Ford had marketed the Bronco II as suitable for regular road use. If it performed poorly in that setting, it could be unfit for that purpose—even if it was not unreasonably dangerous for off-road use.
The court rejected Ford’s argument that the strict liability theory replaced the warranty claim. New York’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code still allows plaintiffs to sue for breach of warranty. That statutory right exists regardless of developments in tort law. The court explained that while the two causes of action overlap, they are not interchangeable.
The decision in Denny was consistent with New York’s view that warranty claims and strict liability claims can proceed separately. The court pointed to the fact that the warranty cause of action is still available under statute. It emphasized that tort and contract law serve different goals.
The court also noted that other states had passed laws merging warranty and strict liability claims into a single legal framework. But New York had not done so. As a result, New York courts must apply the separate rules that govern warranty and strict liability claims.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals decision in Denny v. Ford Motor Co. confirmed that in New York, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty are separate legal theories. A plaintiff can win under one and lose under the other. In this case, the jury found that the Bronco II was not defective under a strict liability standard, but was unfit for the ordinary driving purposes for which it was sold. That outcome was legally acceptable under New York law.
This case is important for product liability plaintiffs and defendants alike. It shows that a defendant may still face liability under warranty law, even if a strict liability claim fails. It also reminds manufacturers that how they market their products matters. If a product is sold as suitable for a certain use, but performs poorly under those conditions, the manufacturer may be held liable for breaching an implied warranty—even if the product’s design meets strict liability standards.