WALTER B. ANDERSON and GLORIA J. ANDERSON V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY V. WALTER B. ANDERSON A/K/A WALTER BOYD ANDERSON III, GLORIA J. ANDERSON and SAM H. WHITEHEAD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: September 11, 1998; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1996-CA-001821-MR
WALTER B. ANDERSON and
GLORIA J. ANDERSON
V.
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DAN CORNETTE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 95-CI-0042
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
APPELLEE
AND
NO. 1996-CA-001869-MR
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
V.
CROSS-APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DAN CORNETTE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 95-CI-0042
WALTER B. ANDERSON
A/K/A WALTER BOYD
ANDERSON III, GLORIA
J. ANDERSON and SAM H.
WHITEHEAD
CROSS-APPELLEES
OPINION
DISMISSING 1996-CA-001821-MR
REVERSING AND REMANDING 1996-CA-001869-MR
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, GARDNER and SCHRODER, JUDGES.
GARDNER, JUDGE. Appellants, Walter B. Anderson and Gloria J.
Anderson (the Andersons), appeal from a judgment of the Muhlenburg
Circuit Court awarding them damages of $4,853.33 from Ford Motor
Company (Ford) for breach of expressed and implied warranties for
a 1993 Ford pickup truck.
The Andersons claim (1) that the court
erred by giving improper instructions when resubmitting the verdict
to the jury, and (2) that the court’s failure to award attorney
fees to the Andersons was error.
On cross-appeal, Ford contends
that Mr. Anderson’s admission of misusing the truck precludes his
ability to enforce any warranty against Ford and that the court
erred by rejecting a motion for a directed verdict citing in part
that admission.
On January 20, 1993, the Andersons purchased a new 1993
Ford F-250 pickup truck. The warranty booklet that accompanied the
truck provides for bumper to bumper coverage of the vehicle for
thirty-six months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first.
The
warranty also limits the duration of any implied warranty of
merchantability or fitness to the duration of the express warranty.
From March 31, 1993 until April 20, 1994, the Andersons'
truck required repairs from Ford dealers under this warranty on
-2-
thirteen occasions.
These repairs were for a variety of problems
including problems with the transmission.
truck had exceeded 36,000 miles.
By May of 1994, the
All repairs were done at no cost
to the Andersons.
In April 1995, the Andersons detected further problems
with their truck.
longer.
They parked the vehicle
and it was driven no
At that time the vehicle had been driven 49,236 miles.
An
inspection by a Ford mechanic on May 20, 1996 revealed damage to
the transmission, right rear axle seal and right rear brakes.
There was atypical water damage to the front brakes and rear axle
assembly and an inordinate amount of mud and grass on top of and
around the transmission; the right side of the truck had been
repainted; there were signs the truck had suffered a significant
rear impact and the rear universal joint had been replaced with a
part not manufactured by Ford.
A
Field Service Engineer for Ford
testified that the vehicle showed evidence of misuse and abuse.
At trial, Mr. Anderson admitted that the truck had been
wrecked on one occasion and as a result, it had required a new
front bumper and paint on the right side.
Mr. Anderson also
admitted that he had used the truck to haul a 10,500 pound trailer.
The owners manual for this truck informs buyers that towing weight
limits are listed on a sticker on
the door of the vehicle.
According to this sticker, the maximum recommended towing capacity
for the vehicle is 6,300 pounds.
Mr. Anderson further admitted that in 1995, sometime
after the 36,000 mile warranty had elapsed and before the time of
-3-
the inspection of the truck by Ford, he had entered his truck in a
“truck
pull”
contest,
in
which
he
came
in
first
place.1
He
testified that he realized using his truck in a “truck pull” would
void the vehicle’s warranty.
Ford testified that use of the truck
to haul loads in excess of the recommended weight capacity was
consistent with the type of transmission damage that was found
during its inspection.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Andersons
with a damage award of $7,500.
However, the first computation of
damages was inconsistent with the court’s instructions, and the
jury was sent back.
It returned with a second award for $4,853.33.
There were no further motions or objections, and the court entered
judgment in favor of the Andersons.
The Andersons claim error in the manner and amount of the
jury’s award.
Ford’s cross-appeal asserts that its motion for a
directed verdict following Mr. Anderson’s admission of misusing the
vehicle prior to his claim of breach of warranty should have been
sustained since such misuse violates the “normal use” condition of
the warranty.
If Ford is correct, then any issue with the manner
and amount of the jury award and issues concerning the awarding of
attorney fees becomes moot.
We therefore turn our attention to
1
This competition consisted of Mr. Anderson using his truck
to pull sleds of increasing weights. The contest winner is the
person whose truck can pull the greatest amount of weight. The
sleds used in these competitions have no wheels and create much
more friction with the ground than a trailer one would normally
pull behind a truck. Pulling a wheelless sled of 10,000 pounds is
appreciably more demanding than pulling a typical trailer of the
same weight.
-4-
whether or not a buyer’s misuse of a good, as defined by the
warranty, precludes his right to damages under that warranty.
It is undisputed that the truck was covered by a warranty
and that the transmission has been and remains inoperative.
We
find problematic, however, the Andersons' assertion that Ford’s
actions or inactions, during and after the term of the warranty,
resulted in any breach of that warranty.
To restate the issue:
will the uncontroverted evidence of the Andersons' unreasonable use
or misuse of the vehicle defeat their claim for breach or warranty?
The court faced a similar question in Black Motor Company
v. Foure, 266 Ky. 431, 99 S.W.2d 177 (1936), wherein a truck owner
maintained that his vehicle was not as warranted.
The truck's
expressed warranty stated that it would not cover vehicles which
had “been subjected to misuse, . . . or loaded beyond the factory
rated load capacity.”
Id, at 178.
Evidence at trial demonstrated
that the truck on a number of occasions had been operated with
loads well in excess of the weight limits prescribed in the
warranty.
This Court awarded a new trial consistent with its
findings which, in part, held that where a vehicle is sold under
either an expressed or implied warranty the “right to recover
damages for its breach [is] limited to . . . complying with the
conditions named in the warranty, which it does not appear the
buyer here undertook to comply with.”
Id, at 183.
This Court is not alone in its reasoning.
In Melcher v.
Boesch Motor Company, 198 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 1972), the Nebraska
Supreme Court ruled that proof of plaintiff’s failure to maintain
-5-
proper oil levels in his truck and failure to notify the dealer
when mechanical problems presented, as required by the owners
manual, constituted misuse of the vehicle and could bar plaintiff
from collecting damages under breach of warranty.
In Burrus v. Itek, Corp., 360 N.E.2d 1168, 1171 (Ill.
App. 1977), and Duff v. Bonner Building Supply Inc., 666 P.2d 650,
652-53 (Idaho 1983), both courts held that misuse of a good by the
buyer bars claims against seller for breach of warranty when it can
not be shown that the defect was not the result of buyer's misuse.
Therefore,
we
hold
that
as
a
matter
of
law,
uncontroverted evidence of a plaintiff’s misuse of a good bars his
ability
to
recover
under
that
good’s
warranty
when
the
nonconformity complained of is shown to be the possible result of
that misuse.
Mr.
Such are the facts in the case at bar.
Anderson
testified
that
before
the
vehicle
was
inspected by Ford he had towed a trailer whose weight exceeded the
rated maximum weight for his truck and had used his truck in a
“truck pull” contest.
The Andersons also failed to contradict
expert testimony at trial that their misuse of the vehicle was a
possible cause of the defects which they claim constitutes Ford's
breach.
For the foregoing reason, this case is reversed and the
matter remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a
judgment for Ford in conformity with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
-6-
BRIEF
FOR
APPELLEES:
APPELLANTS/CROSS-
BRIEF
FOR
APPELLANT:
Sam H. Whitehead
Lexington, Kentucky
APPELLEE/CROSS-
Robert E. Stopher
Louisville, Kentucky
-7-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
