Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. case brief
Facts: Plaintiff buys car; he claims he was told that his windshield was made of non-shatterable glass and would not break. While he was driving, a pebble from a passing car hit the glass and caused small pieces of glass to fly into his eye, resulting in its loss. Court took judgment from jury and decided to allow both defendants to win. Plaintiff appeals. Issue of whether court should have allowed the pamphlet that outlined how the glass was shatterproof; defendant argued that it was not an implied or express warranty without contract and should not be used as such.
Decision: New trial ordered.
Reasoning: Rule in cases of a wrongly labeled drug, people have been able to sue for damages recovered as long as the consumer could not readily detect that the label was wrong which rested on the fact that the label was wrong. It would be an unjust world to allow a manufacturer to sell products by representing qualities that these products actually do not have even if there was no contract existing. Courts will declare an exception to this rule when appropriate.
In the subsequent trial, court decided that it does not matter if a manufacturer’s statements were to be taken in context to other manufacturers, if it was the wrong information then still responsible for those words.
Holding: A plaintiff can recover from a defendant manufacturer because of damages suffered by the manufacturer failing to label the drug properly which the plaintiff could not readily discover even without a contract present.