Denny v. Ford Motor Co.

Nancy Denny and her husband, Robert Denny (plaintiffs) purchased a Ford Bronco II. Nancy was driving the vehicle when she slammed on the brakes to avoid a deer. The vehicle rolled over, severely injuring Nancy. The Dennys sued Ford Motor Company (Ford) (defendant) in federal district court, asserting claims for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. At trial, the Dennys presented evidence that the Bronco II’s design made it more unstable than other road vehicles and susceptible to rollovers. Ford countered that the Bronco II was not designed as an on-the-road vehicle, but rather was made for off-road use over rugged terrain. In response, the Dennys introduced a Ford marketing manual encouraging sales to customers looking for an on-road vehicle for suburban or city driving. The jury found that Ford (1) was not liable for the strict-products-liability claim but (2) had breached the implied warranty of merchantability. The jury awarded the Dennys $1.2 million in damages for their implied-warranty claim. Ford moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury could not have different outcomes for the two claims because the claims were legally identical. Specifically, Ford argued that both claims turned on whether the product was defective when used for its intended purpose. The district court denied the new-trial motion. Ford appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit certified several questions to New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. One certified question was whether, under state law, a strict-products-liability claim was identical to an implied-warranty-of-merchantability claim.