79 Wash. 2d 184 - Berg v. Stromme’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably 86 Wash. 2d 256 - Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, Inc. (1975), 115 Wash. 2d 217 - American Nursery Products, Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards (1990)
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 51 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. · Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. · 75 Wash. 2d 522 - Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co. · Webster v. L. Romano Engineering Corp. · 76 Wash. 2d 428 - House v. Thornton
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the sale by a dealer or retailer of a brand new automobile, the dealer impliedly warrants that the automobile is of merchantable quality and that the new car is fit to transport the driver and his passengers with reasonable safety, efficiency and comfort — according to the size, model and power of the vehicle. Waivers of such warranties, being disfavored in law, are ineffectual unless explicitly negotiated between buyer and seller and set forth with particularity showing the particular qualities and characteristics of fitness which are being waived. 484 P.2d at 386 . (Emphasis added.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A waiver of quality or capability], even though printed, should not be allowed to arise from the fine print to haunt the buyer . . . unless he has agreed to be bound by it with the same degree of explicitness that he bound himself to the other vital conditions of the contract of purchase.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wn.2d 522 , 452 P.2d 729 (1969), this court adopted the rule of strict liability against the manufacturer — not the dealer — in accordance with the modern views declared in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402 A (1965); Annot., 13 A.L.R.3d 1057 , 1096. See W. Prosser, The Fall of the Citadel, 50 Minn. L. Rev. 791 (1966). Strict liability — liability without proof of negligence — in torts has been applied to the retail dealer despite disclaimers of warranty with greater and impressive frequency. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358 , 161 A.2d 69 , 75 A.L.R.2d 1 (1960); Appleman v. Fabert Motors, Inc., 30 Ill. App. 2d 424 , 174 N.E.2d 892 (1961); Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal. 2d 256 , 391 P.2d 168 (1964); Clary v. Fifth Ave. Chrysler Center, Inc., 454 P.2d 244 (Alaska 1969); Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 59 Misc. 2d 241 , 298 N.Y.S.2d 538 (1969); Schenfeld v. Norton Co., 391 F.2d 420 (10th Cir., 1968).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.