Opinion ID: 1758152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Pot Life: 8+ hours @ 75 F

Text: Appellants also rely on that portion of appellant Parker's testimony relating his conversations with Pritchett concerning Pritchett's explanation for the reason the coating chipped. Finally, appellants rely on appellant Parker's testimony that some of the persons who swam in the pool cut their feet on the chips and on Littleton's testimony that the repairs to the pump were required because pieces of the coating product had lodged in the pump. Appellants' arguments with respect to strict liability are wholly without merit. Granted, the evidence relied on by appellants establishes that the product did not adhere to the pool because it was applied over a latex base and that it caused injury to some people's feet. However, this is not evidence that the product was defective. As appellees point out, if this evidence proves anything, it proves only that the product was misused. Proof that the product was defective is an essential element of a cause of action based on strict liability. Ark.Code Ann. § 4-86-102(a)(2) (Repl.1966); Higgins, 287 Ark. 390, 699 S.W.2d 741. However, proof of a specific defect is not required when common experience teaches that the accident or damage would not have occurred in the absence of a defect. Id. Here, we cannot say that the coating would not have chipped in the absence of a defect because, as the trial court stated, there [could] be fifty reasons why paint peels[.] A couple of reasons that come to mind are misuse and improper application. Thus, proof of a defect was required in this case. Given the absence of any proof that the product was defective, we cannot say the trial court erred in directing a verdict for appellee Superior Products on the strict liability claim. Further, given the absence of proof of defect, we need not determine whether the remaining elements of liability were established.
To sustain a claim for breach of warranty of merchantability, a plaintiff must prove that he sustained damages, that the product was not fit for its ordinary purpose, that the unfitness was the proximate cause of his damages, and that he is someone reasonably expected to use the product. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Dillaha, 280 Ark. 477, 659 S.W.2d 756 (1983). We dispose of this argument summarily because there was absolutely no proof whatsoever of the ordinary purpose of this product. On the record before us, we cannot determine whether the purpose of the product was for swimming pools or space shuttles. Moreover, appellants do not even allege what they claim the ordinary purpose of this product to be. Without this proof, we simply cannot determine whether there was any breach of the warranty of merchantability. Even assuming, as appellees state in their brief, that the ordinary purpose of this product was to coat swimming pools, there was no proof that the product was not fit for that purpose. Again, there was only proof that the product cracked and peeled from appellants' swimming pool which may indicate a problem with the product's application. Thus, we cannot say the trial court erred in directing a verdict for Superior Products.
Essentially, appellants contend this product should have been accompanied by some warning or instruction not to apply it over chlorinated rubber or latex paint. Appellants merely allege that the duties to warn or instruct existed in this case. They do not cite any authority to support this allegation, nor do they cite authority stating under what facts and circumstances these duties arise. We will not do appellants' research for them. Forrest v. Ford, 324 Ark. 27, 918 S.W.2d 162 (1996). The question of what duty is owed is always a question of law. First Commercial Trust Co. v. Lorcin Eng'g, Inc., 321 Ark. 210, 900 S.W.2d 202 (1995). In this case, the trial court never determined that appellees owed appellants a duty to warn or instruct. Thus, there is no ruling for us to review even if we had been cited to applicable law. Appellants do cite authority for the proposition that the adequacy of a warning label is generally a question for the jury, Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228, 843 S.W.2d 807 (1992). However, according to appellant Parker's testimony, there were no warnings or instructions that accompanied this product. Thus, there were no labels or instructions for the jury to determine the adequacy of, and appellants' reliance on Bushong is misplaced. We conclude there was no substantial evidence tending to establish an issue in favor of appellants. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment directing a verdict for appellee Superior Products.