Supreme Court
Ford Motor Co. v. Parks
- Case number: 23-0048
- Legal category: Products Liability
- Subtype: Statute of Repose
- Set for oral argument: February 21, 2024
Case Summary
This case concerns when a sale occurs under the statute of repose for products liability, which requires a claimant to sue the manufacturer or seller “before the end of 15 years after the date of the sale of the product by the defendant.”
Samuel Gama sustained permanent, severe injuries when his Ford Explorer flipped and rolled several times during a traffic accident. Gama, his mother, and his wife, Parks, sued Ford for products liability under negligence and strict-liability theories. Ford asserted the statute of repose as an affirmative defense, arguing that the case was barred because it was brought more than 15 years after the Explorer was originally sold. Ford moved for a traditional summary judgment, arguing that a dealership first sold the Explorer more than 15 years before Parks brought suit. When Parks demonstrated that the dealership had initially leased the Explorer, Ford brought a second motion for a traditional summary judgment based on its sale of the Explorer to the dealership. In response, Parks argued that Ford failed to conclusively establish the date of sale because it relied on the inconsistent and contradictory testimony of interested witnesses.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Ford, but the court of appeals reversed, and Ford filed a petition for review. Ford argues that proof of payment on a date certain is not required to demonstrate that a sale occurred for purposes of the statute of repose. Instead, Ford contends it merely had to show that a sale must have occurred outside of the 15-year window for suit. Ford also asserts that it met its burden at summary judgment to prove that a sale occurred outside the 15-year window. The Supreme Court granted the petition for review.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.