Case Name: Iona MATTHEWS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Two Minor Children, Urick Matthews and Johnathan Matthews. v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1998-03-11
Citations: 708 So. 2d 1248
Docket Number: No. 97-CA-0449
Parties: Iona MATTHEWS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Two Minor Children, Urick Matthews and Johnathan Matthews. v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, C.J., and PLOTKIN and CIACCIO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 708
Pages: 1248–1251

Head Matter:
Iona MATTHEWS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Two Minor Children, Urick Matthews and Johnathan Matthews. v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
No. 97-CA-0449.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 11, 1998.
Thomas P. Anzelmo, Catherine M. Williams, Geoffrey Orr, Campbell, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo & Hardy, Metairie, for Defendant/Appellant.
John H. Brooks, Gretna, for Plaintiff/Ap-pellee.
Before SCHOTT, C.J., and PLOTKIN and CIACCIO, JJ.

Opinion:
2SCHOTT, Chief Judge.
Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has appealed from a judgment in plaintiffs favor for damages she sustained as a result of a fire caused by a defective lamp she purchased from defendant. The issue is whether she is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law when she failed to prove that defendant was the lamp's manufacturer, that defendant held itself out to be the manufacturer, or that defendant knew or should have known that the lamp was defective. We reverse.
Plaintiff purchased the lamp from defendant on January 3, 1994, and took it home. Three days later, there was a fire in her apartment which was caused by a short cir cuit in the lamp. Plaintiff testified that nothing on the lamp or the box it came in identified the manufacturer, but it was marked "Made in China." She said the box was not sealed, its inner packaging had been removed, and its cord was loose. She stipulated, however, that there was nothing apparently wrong with the lamp; otherwise, she would not have purchased it.
Defendant's legal responsibility is governed by the Louisiana Products Liability Act, LSA-R.S. 9:2800.51 et seq. That law defines a manufacturer not only as one who literally manufactures a product but also one who labels the product as his own or holds himself to be the manufacturer or who exercises control over the design, construction or quality of the product. R.S. 9:2800.53. None of these elements apply to this case. The lamp was labeled as "Made in China" and there is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant had any | ¡control over the lamp's design, construction, or quality.
R.S. 9:2800.53(l)(d) also defines a manufacturer as the seller of a product of an alien manufacturer if the seller is in the business of importing or distributing the product for resale and the seller is the alter ego of the alien manufacturer. The statute provides that the alter ego determination is based upon whether the seller has common ownership of or control over the alien manufacturer, whether the seller is involved with the warranty obligation of the manufacturer, whether the seller modifies the product, "or any other relevant evidence." In the present case there is no evidence at all to support the conclusion or even an inference that defendant under this statute is the alter ego of the chínese manufacturer or the lamp. ,
Plaintiff argues that Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 358 So.2d 926 (La.1978) supports her position; that the "professional vendor" theory applies to defendant as it applied to Sears in that case. This ease was decided ten years before the adoption of the LPLA which establishes exclusive theories of liability for manufacturers for damage caused by their products. R.S. 9:2800.52. Ckappuis has been legislatively overruled. On the other hand, such cases as Ferruzzi, USA, Inc. v. R.J. Tricon Co., 93-1591 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/29/94), 645 So.2d 685 and Baldwin v. Kikas, 93-CA-1739 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/14/94), 635 So.2d 1324 which applied the LPLA and applied the same prinieiples discussed in this case are applicable.
We are not without sympathy for the plaintiff in this case, but we do not make the law. The legislature in adopting the LPLA provided remedies to purchasers of defective products only under certain conditions. Plaintiff argues that defendant is a giant retailer who should be made to bear the responsibility for damage caused by defects in merchandise it sells regardless of its lack of knowledge of such defects, that it is in a position to determine the identity of |4the manufacturers of products it sells, and that it should not escape liability for a defective product such as the lamp in this case simply because it was not the manufacturer and does not identify the manufacturer.
In the final analysis,plaintiff makes a strong equitable argument that the court should fashion some remedy for her because of her position relative to this retail giant who sold her this Chinese lamp. A court is not in a position to provide a special remedy for an individual plaintiff who cannot bring herself within the ambit of the protection afforded by the LPLA. The court is surely not in the position to hold that any seller of a new lamp made in China is liable for unknown defects. This would subject even the entrepreneur operating a small shop to unlimited products liability. Neither is the court in the position to classify what sellers are liable because of their size as compared to small entrepreneurs. For example, were we to conclude that a "retail giant" is liable in a case such as this, how do we define a retail giant? All of these questions are for the legislature which through committee hearings and debates can make classifications of sellers for products lability purposes based upon a comprehensive consideration of relevant economic and social factors.
Bécause plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to recovery under the LPLA, the trial court erred as a matter of law by rendering judgment in her favor. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and set aside and her ease is dismissed at her cost.
REVERSED.
PLOTKIN, J., dissents.