Midwestern V.W. Corp. v. Ringley

Wanda Ringley (plaintiff) bought a new Volkswagen automobile from Kelly Vance Motors (Kelly Vance) (defendant). The car had a 24-month warranty against manufacturing defects. Shortly after the purchase, Ringley applied the brakes to come to an abrupt stop, and the car pulled to the right. Ringley returned the car to Kelly Vance for repairs. Shortly after she picked up the vehicle from being repaired, a similar incident occurred, and Ringley again returned the vehicle to Kelly Vance, which again repaired the vehicle. Ringley had no more issues until a little more than a month after the original purchase, when the vehicle again pulled to the right when the brakes were applied. Ringley again returned the vehicle to Kelly Vance. Eight days after picking up the car, Ringley attempted to pass another car on a wet road. She saw a pool of water on the road ahead of her and applied the brakes. The right front wheel grabbed, sending her car into a spin. The car struck a telephone pole, and Ringley was severely injured. Ringley brought an action against Kelly Vance; the car’s manufacturer, Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesell; the importer, Volkswagen of America, Inc.; and the distributor, Midwestern Volkswagen Corporation (defendants) and obtained a verdict. There was evidence that the right-front brake drum was out of round to a degree exceeding factory specifications, which was a defect in the manufacturing process that would cause the vehicle to pull to the right when the brakes were applied. One witness stated that the brake drum being out of round was the only thing that he could tell had caused the car to pull to the right because the lining showed some chattering points. Contradictory evidence was presented that other circumstances could have caused the vehicle to pull to the right, including dirt and dust in the left brake lining, water in the left brake lining, improper adjustment of the right-front brake drum, improper tire pressure, and improper tire alignment. The jury found for Ringley based on the doctrine of manufacturer’s strict liability. The manufacturer, importer, and distributor appealed from that judgment as well as from a joint and several judgment in favor of Kelly Vance against them for indemnity.