Reese v. Ford Motor Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
2012 WL 4465670 (2012)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Ford Motor Company (Ford) (defendant) delivered a new car to the Magarino automobile dealership (defendant). The car had an express warranty that clearly and unmistakably disclaimed Ford’s liability for nonfactory parts. Magarino subsequently transferred the car to the Faulkner automobile dealership (defendant). Faulkner sold the car to Timothy Reese (plaintiff), an employee of the local Pep Boys automobile-parts store. Reese and Pep Boys serviced the car over the next three years. At some point, someone installed defective aftermarket wiring in the car. This defective wiring ignited and caused a fire that destroyed the car and damaged Reese’s house. Reese sued Ford, Magarino, and Faulkner for damages on theories of strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties. The federal district court ruled that Ford’s warranty disclaimer shielded Ford from Reese’s express-warranty claim. The court also applied alternative-liability principles to conclude that Reese could not prove that any one defendant installed the defective wiring. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all charges. Reese appealed to the Third Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ambro, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
