Chapter 20 Cases Product Liability Royal Indemnity Co vs Tyco Fire Products LP Tyco Fire Products manufactured sprinkler heads these sprinkler heads were installed for fall control purposes in a VA apartment building in 1997 In 2003 a fire occurred and two of the sprinkler heads failed to activate therefore the fire spread to other parts of the building and caused substantial damage Royal Indemnity the building s insurer paid for the damages and then sued Tyco on the theory that the sprinklers failure to activate constituted a breach of an express warranty of future performance According to Royal this express warranty stemmed from a technical data sheet that Tyco provided in 1997 the data sheet described the component parts and how they work together corrosion had developed on the sprinkler heads which caused them not to work when there was a fire Tyco asked the trial court to dismiss Royal s express warranty claim bc of the 4 year statute of limitations on claims for breaches of contracts for the sale of goods trial court agreed Royal appealed to Supreme Court of VA Did Tyco s description of how its sprinkler heads function constitute an express warranty of future performance o NO o Virginia Code Express warranties by affirmation promise description sample says Express warranties by the seller are created as follows any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise and any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description o There is no evidence that the language describing how the sprinkler heads work in the data sheet become part of the basis of the bargain o The data sheet simply is a description of how the sprinkler heads operate o No where does Tyco promise that the sprinkler head will operate correctly for a particular period of time o It is absurd to conclude that a description of how a device operates amounts to an express warranty of future performance for an unlimited duration for an unlimited duration would result in insuring its product indefinitely which is unfair o Data sheet provided a 1 year warranty that the sprinkler head shall be free from defects in material and workmanship if Tyco wished to provide any further warranty it would have put more language here Moss v Batesville Casket Co Moss died her 4 children are the plaintiffs Ott Lee Funeral Home handled the arrangements Plaintiffs selected a cheery wood casket manufactured by Batesville Plaintiffs chose this casket bc of aesthetic reasons Ott Lee said the casket was top of the line but bc it was a wooden casket it could not be sealed Ott Lee said nothing about the ability of the wooden casket to preserve the body plaintiffs made no inquiry about whether the wooden casket would preserve the body Batesville expressed warranty was over when the burial took place o Limited warranty said Batesville would replace the casket if at any time prior to the interment of this casket defects in materials or workmanship were discovered In 2001 the body was exhumed because there might have been medical malpractice as the casket was removed it began to break apart the plaintiffs saw cracked and separation in the casket Plaintiffs said defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose Ott Lee and Batesville both moved for summary judgment Plaintiffs presented affidavits from expert witnesses whose specialties were wood rot and adhesives not caskets these experts said that the casket was in poor condition because of the adhesives used when it was manufactured Trial court granted summary judgment plaintiffs appealed to SC of Mississippi The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does not arise unless there is reliance on the seller by the buyer and the seller selects goods which are unfit for the particular purpose Depositions taken from the plaintiffs during discovery demonstrate that the plaintiffs purchased the wooden casket for it aesthetic value o Plaintiffs clearly were aware of the characteristic differences between a wooden casket and a metal one Implied warranty of fitness o Nothing proves that the plaintiffs identified any particular purpose to the defendants when the casket was selected o Nothing proves that the body had been damaged in any way by the alleged problems with the casket o Therefore the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the implied warranty claim Implied warranty of merchanability o A warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind and the goods must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used o Plaintiffs argued that as reasonable consumers they expected the casket to preserve the body for an indefinite period of time Defendants say that there is no evidence that the remains are not preserved the plaintiffs present no claim that the remains had been damaged in any way by the cracks separations o Craigmiles v Giles a casket is nothing more than a container for human remains all caskets like their contents eventually decompose Batesville says that the ordinary purpose of a wooden casket is to house the remains of the departed It is not reasonably foreseeable that any customer would expect a wooden casket to preserve the remains for an indefinite period of time Wilke v Woodhouse Ford Inc Wilkes purchased a used Ford van from Woodhouse Agreement stated that the van was used in bold type that he van was being sold AS IS and WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY in smaller font say that the dealer hereby expressly disclaims all warranties express or implied including any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose Wilkes parked the van on a friend s driveway that was slightly sloped did not apply emergency break Wilkes showed the car to their friends her daughter jumped in the drivers seat Mrs Wilkes yelled at them to get out Mrs Wilkes said her daughters hand was on the steering wheel and gearshift Mrs Wilkes hearded a clunk and the van rolled backwards Mrs Wilkes was hit by the open door fell her head struck the pavement van s left front tire rolled over her right foot and thigh Sheriff filed a report stating that the vehicle was discovered to
View Full Document
Unlocking...