Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.
California Supreme Court
391 P.2d 168 (1964)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Chester Vandermark (plaintiff) purchased a new Ford automobile from Maywood Bell Ford (Maywood Bell) (defendant), an authorized Ford dealer. After Vandermark had driven the vehicle about 1,500 miles, he lost control of the car after he applied the brakes, veered off the highway, and collided with a light post and suffered serious injuries to himself and his sister, Mary Tresham (plaintiff). Vandermark and Tresham brought suit against Maywood Bell and Ford Motor Company (Ford) (defendant), the manufacturer of the vehicle for breach of warranty and negligence. At trial, Vandermark provided an expert on the operation of hydraulic automobile brakes who testified that, in his opinion, the brakes applied themselves after failure of the piston in the master cylinder leading to Vandermark’s loss of control of the vehicle. The trial court struck the testimony and rejected Vandermark’s offer to prove that all of the possible causes of the piston failure were attributable to all defendants. Thereafter, the trial court granted Ford’s motion of nonsuit as to all causes of action against it and directed a verdict in favor of Maywood Bell on the warranty causes. The jury returned a verdict for Maywood Bell on the negligence claim and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. Vandermark and Tresham appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
