Ford Motor Company And The Nancy Denny Consumer Liability Case
Nancy Denny and husband filed a federal district lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. Nancy Denny sustained severe injuries after her Ford Bronco II rolled when she slammed on the brakes while trying to avoid hitting deer. Denny’s attorney argued in court that the Bronco rolled over more often because of its high center gravity, narrow wheel base and narrow track. Ford countered by saying that the Bronco was not designed for on-road use, but was rather made to be used over rough terrain.
The Denny case was ultimately decided in Denny’s favour. The jury determined that Ford had been negligent in “designing and testing the Bronco II,” however, this negligence did not cause Nancy Denny’s injury. Ford’s failure to issue adequate warnings for the Bronco II was found not to be negligence by the jury. Ford was found to have breached their implied warranty. This breach, however, caused Nancy Denny’s injuries.
Nancy Denny bought a vehicle not only for its practicality but also to provide her with extra power. Ford Motor Company’s misrepresentation caused the Denny’s to suffer serious injury due to their marketing techniques. This marketing method is not providing consumers with valuable information on the dangers of this vehicle when used improperly.
Nancy Denny bought a Bronco Ford Bronco II, thinking it would let her switch between two and four wheel drives. Nancy Denny thought she was buying a Bronco, a Ford Bronco, which would allow her to switch between four-wheel and two-wheel drives. However, it turned out that Nancy had bought a Bronco, i.e.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. Nancy then filed. suit, claiming negligence as well strict products liability, breach of implied guarantee of merchantability, etc. Nancy was successful because the court ruled that Ford Motor Company did not adhere to the implied warranty.
Judge Simons, however, disagreed with the majority. He argued that a court should hold a company responsible for any injuries caused by its products. He was wrong however because both actions were not the same. His opinion should have been similar for cases involving poorly designed products. Judge Simons analyzed these groups in the majority of cases but did not consider cases involving product defects (McDougall & Popat 2010, 2010). Ford could’ve done was ensured the Bronco II had a greater utility off-road than the dangers of on-road rolling over. The advertisement was shown to be a simple sales strategy that should not have been held responsible for the car’s suitability.
In both cases, the misrepresentation by the Ford and Norplant marketing campaigns to the customers is similar (Halbert & Ingulli 2012). Both products were not merchantable because they did not meet the advertised purpose (Heafey & Kennedy). Both cases used misleading marketing campaigns, which is against the Consumer Protection Act and unethical. Both cases started because of personal injuries caused to plaintiffs by defendants’ products.
A consumer may sue the manufacturer of a product if it does not meet his expectations or is misled through marketing tactics. Tort law provides relief in the Norplant vs Ford Motor Company case.
