Torts II, Pages 773–774

Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. (2)

Supreme Court of Washington, 1934

Procedural History:

Trial court entered judgment for defendants. Supreme Court of Washington reversed and ordered a new trial. The second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff.

Defendant's Argument:

Expert testimony that said that defendant used the best windshield made in plaintiff's car should have been admitted.

Issue:

Should testimony that defendants used the best possible windshield be admitted?

Reasoning:

Whether there was a better windshield in existence or not, the windshield in plaintiff's car was not as defendant claimed. Defendant should have known that it was not shatterproof even if it was not possible to make one more shatterproof.

Rule/Holding:

LexisNexis IconWestLaw LogoPage 774

If a person states as true material facts susceptible of knowledge to one who relies and acts thereon to his injury, if the representations are false, it is immaterial that he did not know they were false, or that he believed them to be true.

Judgment:

Affirmed.

Dropbox – Your stuff, anywhere – Try it free