From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Warner v. Ford Motor Company

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Apr 1, 2008
Civil Action No. 06-cv-02443-JLK-MEH (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2008)

Summary

holding that Ford's "Built Ford Tough" and "Quality is Job #1" advertising slogans were puffery

Summary of this case from Kommer v. Ford Motor Co.

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-cv-02443-JLK-MEH.

April 1, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before me on Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief (Doc. 46), filed March 6, 2008. In this Motion, Defendant seeks summary judgment to the extent these claims allege the vehicle in question was defective or unreasonably dangerous by virtue of a design or manufacturing defect in its seat belt system. In response, Plaintiffs state they do not oppose the Motion. Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. on Pls.' First and Second Claims (Doc. 50).

Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief (Doc. 46) and ORDER that summary judgment be entered for Defendant and against Plaintiffs on these claims to the extent they allege the vehicle in question was defective or unreasonably dangerous by virtue of a design or manufacturing defect in its seat belt system.


Summaries of

Warner v. Ford Motor Company

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Apr 1, 2008
Civil Action No. 06-cv-02443-JLK-MEH (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2008)

holding that Ford's "Built Ford Tough" and "Quality is Job #1" advertising slogans were puffery

Summary of this case from Kommer v. Ford Motor Co.

denying defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' CCPA claims

Summary of this case from O'Connor v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

In Warner, Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane denied summary judgment and permitted a CCPA claim to go forward on the "novel theory... that Ford marketed a product knowing it had a safety defect that it failed to disclose."

Summary of this case from Pertile v. Gen. Motors, LLC

In Warner, for example, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-manufacturer failed to disclose the fact that the subject vehicle was defectively designed and that the defect posed a known safety risk to consumers.

Summary of this case from In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Plastic Coolant Tubes Prods. Liab. Litig.
Case details for

Warner v. Ford Motor Company

Case Details

Full title:PAUL G. WARNER and JILL R. WARNER, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Apr 1, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 06-cv-02443-JLK-MEH (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2008)

Citing Cases

Watson v. Dillon Cos.

Although Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence regarding how many consumers purchase the product at issue…

Valley Fresh Produce v. W. Skyways, Inc.

To prevail on this claim, plaintiffs must show that (1) Western failed to disclose information concerning its…