Torts—Strict Products Liability for Retailers?—Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wash. Dec. 2d 537, 452, P.2d 729 (1969)
anon,
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by4
- 1985Zamora v. Mobil Oil Corp. Wash.
- 1977Shaffer v. Victoria Station, Inc. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1975Seattle-First National Bank v. Tabert Wash.
- 1970Baker v. City of Seattle Wash. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co. the Washington plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer of an automobile which had gone out of control and crashed into a cement abutment due to a defectively installed "A frame" pivot bolt. Plaintiff, whose theory of recovery was based on strict liability, was denied relief in the trial court. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed and remanded, adopting the Restatement (Second) position and holding that plaintiff's theory reflected the import of cases previously decided by the court under the theory of breach of implied warranty. The court abandoned the implied warranty theory of recovery, concluding that it would be inconsistent to continue deciding cases on a warranty theory without attaching the customary incidents of warranty.