Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittortnegligenceliabilitysustainedstrict liability
tortplaintiffdefendantliabilitytrialmotionsustainedstrict liability

Related Cases

Collins v. Plant Insulation Co., 185 Cal.App.4th 260, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 241, 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 861, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6933, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8258
View Case »
Brown v. Derry, 10 Wash.App. 459, 518 P.2d 251
View Case »
Roman v. Estate of Gobbo, 99 Ohio St.3d 260, 791 N.E.2d 422, 2003 -Ohio- 3655
View Case »
Bly v. Tri-Continental Industries, Inc., 663 A.2d 1232, 64 USLW 2180, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,315
View Case »
Harnish v. Children’s Hosp. Medical Center, 387 Mass. 152, 439 N.E.2d 240
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 363 A.2d 955, 20 UCC Rep.Serv. 312

Facts

James D. Phipps, an employee at Marbert Motors, was injured while test driving a 1972 Pontiac that had been delivered for servicing. The vehicle's accelerator became stuck, causing it to accelerate uncontrollably and crash into a tree, injuring Phipps and a passenger. Phipps and his wife filed a lawsuit against General Motors, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability due to the defective condition of the automobile.

The plaintiff, James D. Phipps, an employee in the service department of Marbert Motors, Inc., of Annapolis, Maryland, was injured on November 1, 1972, when a 1972 Pontiac automobile which had been delivered to Marbert for servicing, and which Phipps was test driving in Annapolis, left the highway and crashed into a tree.

Issue

1. Do the third and sixth counts of the Complaint state causes of action under Maryland law by a person who allegedly sustained bodily injuries by reason of the defective condition? 2. Does the fifth count of the Complaint state a cause of action under Maryland law for loss of consortium caused by breaches of express and implied warranties?

‘1. Do the third and sixth counts of the Complaint (alleging that the defendant manufactured and placed on the market an automobile in a defective condition which condition rendered the automobile not reasonably safe for its intended use) state causes of action under Maryland law by a person who allegedly sustained bodily injuries by reason of the defective condition? ‘2. Does the fifth count of the Complaint (alleging injury to a marital relationship by reason of breaches of express and implied warranties) state a cause of action under Maryland law?’

Rule

The theory of strict liability is set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which states that a seller is liable for physical harm caused by a product in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.

The theory of strict liability is set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts s 402A (1965): ‘Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or consumer…’

Analysis

The court found that the allegations in the complaint met the criteria for strict liability under § 402A, as the automobile was in a defective condition when it left the control of General Motors and was unreasonably dangerous. The court also determined that the loss of consortium claim was valid under the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code, as it recognized the rights of third-party beneficiaries.

Thus the standard to be applied in determining whether a product is defective becomes critical. For a seller to be liable under s 402A, the product must be both in a ‘defective condition’ and ‘unreasonably dangerous' at the time that it is placed on the market by the seller.

Conclusion

The court answered both certified questions in the affirmative, allowing the claims for strict liability and loss of consortium to proceed under Maryland law.

For these reasons, we conclude that the third and sixth counts of the complaint state a cause of action under Maryland law. The first certified question is answered ‘Yes.’

Who won?

James D. Phipps and his wife prevailed in the case, as the court recognized their right to pursue claims for strict liability and loss of consortium based on the defective condition of the automobile and breach of warranty.

Phipps opposed both motions. Citing several trial court opinions, he argued that the courts of Maryland have recognized the theory of strict liability in cases where it would be applicable.

You must be