Nancy Denny and her husband filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Ford Motor Company after Nancy was seriously injured when the Ford Bronco II she was driving overturned in response to her slamming the brakes to avoid hitting a deer. At trial, Denny's lawyers argued that the Bronco's high center of gravity, narrow track and short wheelbase resulted in greater instability, making it much more susceptible to rollovers. Ford countered that the Bronco II was never designed to serve as a street vehicle, but rather was made for off-road use in rough terrain. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The jury ultimately ruled in favor of Denny. The jury initially found that Ford had been negligent in "designing, testing, and marketing the Bronco II", but that this negligence was not the proximate cause of Nancy Denny's injuries. The jury then found that Ford was not negligent in failing to provide appropriate warnings with respect to the Bronco II. However, the jury found that Ford had breached the implied warranty and that this breach was the proximate cause of Nancy Denny's injuries. Nancy Denny, like many vehicle owners, purchased a vehicle for practical use and when she needed additional power. However, the marketing technique used by Ford Motor Company to sell the Bronco II led to the product being misrepresented at Denny's, resulting in serious injuries. The problem with this marketing technique is that consumers are not receiving valuable information about the potential dangers this vehicle poses without proper use. Nancy Denny thought about buying a Ford Bronco II, which would allow her to go from four-wheel drive to two-wheel drive. However, what Nancy purchased was a four-wheel drive Ford vehicle, Bronco II, with short wheels and a high center of gravity, as well as a specially adapted suspension system. Nancy sued claiming negligence, strict product liability, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Nancy won because the court and jury found that Ford Motor Company had violated the implied warranty of merchantability (Heafey & Kennedy, 2013). Judge Simons dissented, arguing that the court should impose absolute liability on the manufacturer if harm is caused by a product purchased by the company. However, he was wrong because the two actions were not identical; for his opinion to be right, both actions should be similar in cases involving improperly designed products. In most cases, they do not overlap and Judge Simons looked at these two groups, but not in product defect cases (McDougall & Popat, 2010). Ford could have done more to ensure that the Bronco II's usefulness as an off-road car outweighed the risk of injury associated with on-road rollovers. They demonstrated that advertising was a mere sales strategy, which should not lead to liability regarding fitness for purpose (McDougall and Popat, 2010). The similarity in marketing campaigns between the Norplant case and the Ford case is that they involve misrepresenting products to customers (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). In both cases, the products were not fit for the purpose for which they were advertised and were therefore not of marketable quality (Heafey & Kennedy, 2013). While unethical and against the Consumer Protection Act, the marketing campaigns used in both cases were misleading to consumers. The two cases started due to injuries.