Ford Motor Company and The Nancy Denny Consumer Liability Case

Nancy Denny and her husband filed a lawsuit in the federal district court against Ford Motor Company after Nancy was severely injured when the Ford Bronco II she was driving rolled over in response to her slamming the brakes in order to avoid hitting a deer. At trial the Denny’s attorneys argued that the Bronco’s high center of gravity, narrow track width and short wheel base resulted in increased instability making it much more susceptible to rollovers. Ford countered that the Bronco II was never designed to serve as an on the road vehicle, but rather was made for off-road use over rugged terrain.

The jury ultimately ruled in the Denny’s favor. The jury first found that Ford was negligent in "designing, testing and marketing the Bronco II," but that this negligence was not the proximate cause of Nancy Denny's injuries. The jury next found that Ford was not negligent in failing to provide appropriate warnings with respect to the Bronco II. However, the jury did find that Ford had breached its implied warranty, and that this breach was the proximate cause of Nancy Denny's injuries.

Nancy Denny like many vehicle owners purchased a vehicle for practical use as well as when she would need additional power. However, the marketing technique that Ford Motor Company used to sell the Bronco II led to the misrepresentation of product to the Denny’s causing serious injury. The problem with this marketing technique is that the consumers are not receiving the valuable information about the potential dangers this vehicle imposed without proper use.

Nancy Denny thought she was purchasing a Bronco II Ford, which was to allow her to switch between four-wheel and two-wheel drives. However, what Nancy bought was a four-wheel drive Ford vehicle, Bronco II, with short wheels and high center of gravity, as well as specially tailored suspension system.. Nancy filed suit claiming negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Nancy won because the court and the jury found that Ford Motor Company breached the implied warranty of merchantability (Heafey & Kennedy, 2013).

Judge Simons dissented, arguing that the court should impose absolute liability on a manufacturer in the event of any injury caused by a product purchased from the company. However, he was wrong because the two actions were not identical; for his opinion to be right, both actions ought to be similar in cases involving improperly designed products. In most cases, they do not overlap and Judge Simons looked into these two groups, but not in cases of product defectiveness (McDougall & Popat, 2010). Ford could have done would be to ensure that the utility of Bronco II as an off-road car was greater than the risk of injuries associated with on-road rollovers. They proved that the advertisement was a mere sales strategy, which should not attract liability concerning fitness for purpose (McDougall and Popat, 2010).

The similarity in the marketing campaigns between the Norplant case and Ford’s case is that they involve misrepresentation of products to customers (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). In both cases, the products were not fit for the purpose for which they were advertised and therefore, they were not of merchantable quality (Heafey & Kennedy, 2013). Although it is unethical and against Consumer Protection Act, marketing campaigns used in both cases were misleading to the consumers. The two cases began due to personal injuries inflicted to the plaintiffs while using the defendants’ products.

Consumers can sue for liability of products if those products don’t meet expectations or if the consumer is deceived by simple marketing ploys. The lawsuit in both the Norplant and Ford Motor Company case deals heavily with tort law which provides relief to a person or persons who have suffered harm from wrongful acts of others.