Ford Motor Co. v. Casanova


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-IA-01172-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2007-IA-01172-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-04-2008
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Negligence - Mississippi Products Liability Act - Exclusive remedy - Implied warranty of merchantability - Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson and Lamar, JJ.; Randolph, J., Concurs in Part.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Diaz, P.J. with separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Easley and Graves, JJ.; Randolph, J. Joins In Part.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-21-2007
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Tomie Green
Disposition: The trial court denied summary judgment for Ford Motor Co. and Watson Quality Ford.
Case Number: 251-03-595 CIV
  Consolidated: Consolidated with 2007-IA-01171-SCT: Watson Quality Ford, Inc. v. Carlos Casanova and Shirley Casanova; Hinds Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 251-03-595 CIV; Ruling Date: 06/21/2007; Ruling Judge: Tomie Green.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Ford Motor Company




Walker W. Jones; Barry W. Ford; Bradley W. Smith; Everett E. White



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Carlos and Shirley Casanova Carroll E. Rhodes  

    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

    Topic: Negligence - Mississippi Products Liability Act - Exclusive remedy - Implied warranty of merchantability - Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose

    Summary of the Facts: On January 7, 2000, Carlos Casanova’s employer, Resilient Flooring, purchased a new Ford Econoline E-250 van from Watson Quality Ford for use in its flooring business. Casanova was involved in two separate wrecks while driving the van on January 20, 2000. After the wrecks occurred – and without having any repairs performed on the van– Casanova continued to drive the van to job sites both in and out of Mississippi. On May 11, Casanova traveled to Vicksburg for a job. While driving the van down a hill at about ten miles per hour, he collided with a car coming up the hill at about twenty-to-thirty miles per hour. Casanova and his wife Shirley filed suit against Ford and Watson Quality, alleging that the accident was caused by one or more “malfunctioning” steering components in the van, and that Watson Quality had negligently failed to repair the malfunctioning components. The original complaint alleged six counts against the defendants: negligence, gross negligence, strict liability (manufacture and design), strict liability (failure to warn), breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The parties entered a Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing the gross-negligence and strict-liability claims against both parties. The plaintiffs also dismissed their negligence claim against Ford, but maintained their negligence claim as to Watson Quality. Ford and Watson filed motions for summary judgment which the trial judge denied. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Exclusive remedy The defendants argue that Casanova’s exclusive remedy is to bring an action under the Mississippi Products Liability Act. However, there is no statutory requirement that makes the MPLA the exclusive remedy for claims of malfunctioning automobiles. Moreover, breach of implied warranty claims are not barred by the MPLA. Issue 2: Implied warranty of merchantability The implied warranty of merchantability provides that when a sale of goods is made, there is an implied warranty that the goods are merchantable if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Privity of contract is not required. Casanova’s expert could not point to the cause of the wreck, and Casanova offered no other proof of causation. Casanova testified that he heard a “pop” and the steering ceased to work. There is not one scintilla of evidence as to what caused the “pop” or the loss of control. Thus, because Casanova has failed to offer any evidence to support one of the essential elements of his claim, no triable fact exists, and summary judgment should have been granted. In addition, he failed to offer the defendants a chance to cure the defect. An opportunity for the seller to cure is a reasonable requisite of a buyer’s right of recovery. Issue 3: Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose No claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose will lie when a product is to be used for its ordinary purpose. Casanova offered no evidence that the van was purchased for anything other than the ordinary purposes for which a van would be used. Issue 4: Negligence Casanova’s claim of negligence fails not because he failed to offer proof of negligence, but rather because he presented no evidence of causation. His testimony of a “pop” and a resulting inability to steer is unconnected by any evidence to Watson’s alleged negligent repair.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court