McGill v. Ford Motor Company
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-01084
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In McGill v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Tigar denied HERC’s dismissal motion for design-defect strict liability but granted it for all other claims.
Erica McGill’s claims against HERC Rentals, Inc.; the design-defect strict-liability claim may proceed, while the other claims challenged by HERC were dismissed subject to the permitted amendment.
What happened
In McGill v. Ford Motor Company, Erica McGill alleged that a Ford F-150 rented by her employer from HERC Rentals, Inc. moved backward after she put it in park and ran over her. She sued Ford and HERC over her injuries, asserting product-liability, warranty, and negligence claims.
HERC argued that the federal Graves Amendment protected it from liability as a vehicle-rental company. The court rejected that argument for McGill’s strict-liability claims, but found that most of her allegations lacked enough supporting facts. The court found that she adequately alleged a design defect under California’s consumer-expectations test.
Judge Tigar denied HERC’s motion to dismiss the strict-products-liability claim based on design defect and granted the motion as to all other claims. McGill may file an amended complaint within 21 days to address the identified deficiencies.
The detailed version
- McGill v. Ford Motor Company · No. 4:24-cv-01084
- Jon Tigar
- June 11, 2024
Background
Erica McGill is an employee of Sonoma Raceway. As part of her duties, she operated an assigned vehicle at the raceway. Her employer rented a Ford F-150 from HERC Rentals, Inc. On June 12, 2023, McGill placed the vehicle in park, exited it, and walked behind it. She alleged that the vehicle then moved backward on its own and ran over her body. She alleged that the vehicle had a known recall defect and that she suffered physical and psychological injuries.
McGill sued Ford Motor Company and HERC in Sonoma County Superior Court, alleging negligence-based product liability, strict product liability, breach of express and implied warranties, and general negligence. Ford removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. HERC moved to dismiss McGill’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
Graves Amendment
The Graves Amendment generally protects a vehicle owner engaged in the business of renting vehicles from liability under state law for harm arising from the vehicle’s use during the rental period, if the owner was not negligent or criminally wrongful. The court held that the amendment did not bar McGill’s strict-liability claims because those claims were based on placing an allegedly defective vehicle into the stream of commerce, rather than on HERC’s vicarious liability or mere ownership of the vehicle.
For negligence claims, the court explained that HERC could be liable only if it was in the business of renting vehicles and was independently negligent. The parties agreed that HERC was in the vehicle-rental business, so the issue was whether McGill adequately alleged independent negligence.
Claims Against HERC
Negligence—products liability. McGill alleged that HERC rented the vehicle despite knowing it was defective or damaged, or failed to inspect it properly. The court found that she provided no supporting facts showing that HERC knew of the alleged defect or failed to discover it through inspection. The court therefore found this claim insufficiently pleaded.
Strict products liability. The court found that McGill adequately alleged that HERC participated in the distribution chain by renting the vehicle to her employer. It considered three possible strict-liability theories:
- Manufacturing defect: The court found that McGill did not clearly identify or explain the alleged defect. Her descriptions varied, including allegations that the vehicle failed to disengage reverse gear or failed to engage park. The court found that she failed to state this theory. - Design defect: McGill did not provide facts supporting the risk-benefit test, which weighs the product’s risks against its benefits. But the court found that she adequately pleaded a design defect under California’s consumer-expectations test. She alleged that she used the vehicle in a reasonably foreseeable way by shifting it into park and exiting, but that it unexpectedly moved backward and ran over her. The court denied the motion to dismiss this theory. - Failure to warn: The court found that McGill did not provide facts supporting her allegation that HERC knew or should have known of the danger and failed to provide an adequate warning. The court found this theory insufficiently pleaded.
Express warranty. The court found that McGill did not allege that HERC made any statements about the vehicle. It therefore found that she failed to state an express-warranty claim.
Implied warranty. McGill alleged that her employer, rather than McGill herself, rented the vehicle from HERC. The court found that she did not plead a direct contractual relationship with HERC or facts establishing that she was a beneficiary of a contract between HERC and a third party. It therefore found the implied-warranty claim insufficient.
General negligence. The court found that McGill alleged broad legal conclusions but provided almost no facts explaining how HERC failed to use ordinary care or acted negligently in its safety procedures. It therefore found the general-negligence claim insufficiently pleaded.
Disposition
The court denied HERC Rentals, Inc.’s motion to dismiss as to McGill’s strict-products-liability claim based on design defect. It granted the motion as to all other claims. The court stated that the dismissed claims could be amended and gave McGill 21 days to file an amended complaint solely to cure the deficiencies identified in the order. If she did not amend, the case would proceed solely on the strict-products-liability design-defect claim.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.