# data[].attributes.headline
they could of made the car more safe. they focused on having the car 4 wheel drive and sence it is 4 wheel drive they should of focused on the car being more safe 

# data[].attributes.subject
they could of made the car more safe. they focused on having the car 4 wheel drive and sence it is 4 wheel drive they should of focused on the car being more safe 

# data[].attributes.headline
when making a car that is made for off road and on road they should have made it more safe 

# data[].attributes.subject
when making a car that is made for off road and on road they should have made it more safe 

# data[].attributes.body
From the foregoing it is apparent that the causes of action for strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of merchantability are not identical in New York and that the latter is not necessarily subsumed by the former. It follows that, under the circumstances presented, a verdict such as the one occurring here -- in which the manufacturer was found liable under an implied warranty cause of action and not liable under a strict products cause of action -- is theoretically reconcilable under New York law.

# data[].attributes.headline
cause in fact the plaintiff did the smart thing. she could of swirved and hit another car 

# data[].attributes.subject
cause in fact the plaintiff did the smart thing. she could of swirved and hit another car 

# data[].attributes.headline
the causeation was the car being destroyed and the people in the car being injured 

# data[].attributes.subject
the causeation was the car being destroyed and the people in the car being injured 

# data[].attributes.headline
this is a strick lieability case because it involves two people and a person and a company 

# data[].attributes.subject
this is a strick lieability case because it involves two people and a person and a company 

# data[].attributes.headline
the District Court Judge submitted both the strict-products-liability claim and the breach-of-implied-warranty claim, despite Ford's objection that the two causes of action were identical.

# data[].attributes.subject
the District Court Judge submitted both the strict-products-liability claim and the breach-of-implied-warranty claim, despite Ford's objection that the two causes of action were identical.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nancy Denny was severely injured when the Ford Bronco II that she was driving rolled over. The rollover accident occurred when Denny slammed on her brakes in an effort to avoid a deer that had walked directly into her motor vehicle's path. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Nancy Denny was severely injured when the Ford Bronco II that she was driving rolled over. The rollover accident occurred when Denny slammed on her brakes in an effort to avoid a deer that had walked directly into her motor vehicle's path. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Ford argued at trial that the design features of which plaintiffs complained were necessary to the vehicle's off-road capabilities. According to Ford, the vehicle had been intended to be used as an off-road vehicle and had not been designed to be sold as a conventional passenger automobile.

# data[].attributes.subject
Ford argued at trial that the design features of which plaintiffs complained were necessary to the vehicle's off-road capabilities. According to Ford, the vehicle had been intended to be used as an off-road vehicle and had not been designed to be sold as a conventional passenger automobile.