Opinion ID: 1700749
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: strict liability instruction

Text: Golden Eagle argues that the strict liability instruction given by the trial court did not conform to NDCC 28-01.1-O5(1). [1] Golden Eagle urges that the statute requires a claimant in a strict liability, tort case to prove that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer. Golden Eagle did not manufacture the Victory Celebration, but imported it from China and sold it in the United States. The trial court instructed the jury that Misty had to prove the fireworks were defective when they left the control and possession of the defendants. Because the jury verdict found two separate grounds for liability, we conclude it is unnecessary to decide this issue. The trial court instructed on both strict liability and breach of warranty, and the jury answered separate interrogatories on each ground. The jury, in addition to finding strict liability, found that Golden Eagle had breached its implied warranty of fitness and that the breach caused Misty's damages. Breach of warranty in contract and strict liability in tort are separate and distinct legal grounds. We have recognized this in prior decisions. See Cooperative Power Ass'n v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 493 N.W.2d 661, 663-66 (N.D.1992); Spieker v. Westgo, Inc., 479 N.W.2d 837, 847-48 (N.D. 1992). See also Prosser and Keeton, Torts §§ 95, 101 (5th ed. 1984). Golden Eagle has not challenged the verdict on the warranty ground. Nor has Golden Eagle challenged the damages awarded and so, in fact, has conceded that the amount awarded was reasonable. Accordingly, we need not address the challenged instruction on strict liability when there is a separate and valid verdict on another ground that supports the amount of damages awarded.