Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law 9th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

Exercise 2

Theory of Recovery. David Dobrovolny bought a Ford F-350 pickup truck from Ainsworth Motors in Ainsworth, Nebraska. Fourteen months later, the truck spontaneously caught fire in his driveway. No one was injured, and no property other than the truck was damaged, but the truck was completely destroyed. Dobrovolny filed a suit in a Nebraska state court against Ford Motor Co. on a theory of strict product liability, alleging that the truck's electrical system and other potential ignition sources had not been properly insulated from the combustible materials in the engine. Dobrovolny sought to recover the cost of the truck. Nebraska recognizes strict product liability, but the state's courts limit its application to situations involving personal injuries rather than property damage. How is the court likely to rule on Dobrovolny's claim? Why? Is there another basis for liability discussed in this chapter on which Dobrovolny might recover? [ Dobrovolny v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Neb. 86, 793 N.W2d 445 (2011)]