Title: Ford Motor Company v. Reid
Citation: 465 S.W.2d 80
Docket Number: 5-5287
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: March 15, 1971

465 S.W.2d 80 (1971) FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. Robert L. REID, et ux., Appellees. No. 5-5287. Supreme Court of Arkansas. March 15, 1971. Rehearing Denied April 26, 1971. *81 Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings, Little Rock, for appellant. Lightle &amp; Tedder, Searcy, and Sidney S. McMath, Little Rock, for appellees. Murphy, Arnold &amp; Blair, Batesville, Jerome F. Leavell, Donald S. Ryan, James T. Gooch and Gerland Patten and Catlett &amp; Henderson, Little Rock, amicus curiae, Ark. Trial Lawyers Assn. BYRD, Justice. Appellees Robert L. Reid and Billie Marie Reid, his wife, on April 26, 1967, purchased through W. H. Capps, d/b/a Capps Motor Company, a 1967 Lincoln Continental automobile manufactured by the appellant, Ford Motor Company. Approximately 1800 miles later, on May 29, 1967, the automobile caught fire while parked in the garage attached to the Reid residence. Within ten minutes from the time the fire was first observed in the electrical harness under the right front seat of the automobile, it spread to and engulfed the residence in flames, resulting in total destruction of the automobile and the residence. The Reids brought this action against both W. H. Capps and Ford Motor Company alleging that the wiring under the front seat was defective in violation of the basic warranty on said automobile and that the damages sustained by them in the fire were proximately caused by the defect in the automobile. The first trial resulted in a directed verdict for Capps and a hung jury on the liability of Ford Motor Company. Upon retrial against Ford Motor Company, the jury returned a verdict for $89,279.00 for which judgment was entered. For reversal Ford Motor Company contends that the directed verdict in favor of Capps exonerated Ford Motor Company and that the court erred in giving its Instructions #6 and #7. The testimony presented clearly made a fact issue as to whether there was a defect in the wiring harness that worked the solenoid for the reclining back of the right front seat and the motor which operated the head rest. The express warranty that came with the vehicle provided: The trial court instructed the jury with reference to their duties, the opening statements and arguments of counsel, credibility of witnesses, circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, expert witnesses and sudden *83 emergency. Then the court gave the following: "The other instructions dealt with proximate cause and damages. Ford Motor Company's argument here on instruction #7 is as follows: In its reply brief Ford Motor Company stated the matter in this language: "The pertinent portions of the Uniform Commercial Code provide: When we read the second paragraph of the general warranty provisions under the guide lines of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 85-2-316(1) that words "tending to negate or limit warranty" are to be construed whenever reasonable as consistent with each other but if the clauses are inconsistent then the words of disclaimer of express warranties must give way to the words creating the express warranty, we reach the conclusion that the mandatory language "all the warranties shall be fulfilled by the selling dealer * * *" is an instruction to the dealer and not a limitation on other remedies of the buyer. This construction is supported by Ark.Stat.Ann. § 85-2-719 (1) (b) which provides that "resort to a remedy as provided is optional unless the *85 remedy is expressly agreed to be exclusive, in which case it is the sole remedy." There is no language anywhere in the warranty form "expressly" stating that the remedy of repair or replacement of defective parts is to be the exclusive remedy. The language in the third paragraph of the "General Warranty Provisions" goes only to "obligations" and "warranties," not to remedies. As Section 85-2-301 (Add. 1961), General Obligations of Parties, shows "The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver * * * in accordance with the contract." Remedies are not "obligations," they are the rights arising from failure to perform obligations. This is further made clear by the provisions of Section 85-2-316(4) cross referencing to contractual remedy section of the Code as governing those phases of the agreement. If the Ford Motor Company intended the repair remedy to be exclusive, as it now contends, it should have stated that intention in express language. Consequently it follows the Instruction #7 was correct. Ford Motor Company's complaint about Instruction No. 6 is that it did not limit liability to defects existing prior to the time the vehicle left Ford's control or to defects for which Ford had some manufacturing responsibility. This argument of course is premised upon the basis that Ford is not liable under the express warranty. As shown above, Ford is liable on its express warranty and it follows that this contention is without merit. By the very terms of the warranty it runs from the date of delivery to the purchaser. It is also suggested that Instruction No. 6 is defective in that it did not limit the jury to a defective wiring condition in, under and about the front seat. We can find no prejudicial error here, because the pleadings and all of the proof had to do with a fire that started in the electrical wiring under the right front seat. Ford also argues that the directed verdict in favor of Capps, the dealer, in the first trial also exonerated Ford. This argument, too, is premised upon the theory that Ford's liability could only be upon the basis of an implied warranty of fitness. As pointed out above, Ford's liability under the circumstances is that under its express warranty. That liability by its terms is independent of any liability of the dealer. It therefore follows that the exoneration of the dealer was in no way an adjudication of Ford's liability under its express warranty. The appellees in their brief and the Amicus Curiae briefs have urged us to adopt the doctrine of strict liability as set out in Restatement of Torts 2d § 402A. Our disposition of this case under the Uniform Commercial Code makes it unnecessary to pass upon that argument. Affirmed.