Opinion ID: 1190081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: As a matter of law, plaintiffs should recover on their cause of action for false representation.

Text: Plaintiffs' claim of false representation relies on common law tort principles reflected in section 402B of the Restatement Second of Torts. [3] For plaintiffs to recover under this section, defendants' statement COMPLETELY SAFE BALL WILL NOT HIT PLAYER must be a misrepresentation of material fact upon which plaintiffs justifiably relied. (Rest. 2d Torts, § 402B, coms. f, g, and j.) [4] If defendants' assertion of safety is merely a statement of opinion  mere puffing  they cannot be held liable for its falsity. (Cf. Willson v. Municipal Bond Co. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 144, 150 [59 P.2d 974]; Pacesetter Homes, Inc. v. Brodkin (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 206, 211-212 [85 Cal. Rptr. 39].) [5] Defendants' statement is so broad, however, that it properly falls within the ambit of section 402B. The assertion that the Gizmo is completely safe, that the ball will not hit the player, does not indicate the seller's subjective opinion about the merits of his product but rather factually describes an important characteristic of the product. Courts have consistently held similar promises of safety to be representations of fact. (See, e.g., McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. (1967) 278 Minn. 322 [154 N.W.2d 488] [vaporizer called safe and practically foolproof]; Spiegel v. Saks 34th St. (1964) 43 Misc.2d 1065, 1070 [252 N.Y.S.2d 852] [representation that cosmetic was safe]; Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company (3d Cir.1961) 295 F.2d 292, 301 (concurring opn.) [representation that cigarettes can cause no ills]; Hansen v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company (6th Cir.1960) 276 F.2d 254, 259 [tires described as safe within stated limits]; Hamon v. Digliani (1961) 148 Conn. 710, 718 [174 A.2d 294] [representation implying that detergent was safe for all household tasks]; Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co. (1958) 167 Ohio St. 244, 249 [4 Ohio Ops.2d 291, 147 N.E.2d 612, 75 A.L.R.2d 103] [permanent wave solution represented as safe and harmless].) These decisions evidence the trend toward narrowing the scope of puffing and expanding the liability that flows from broad statements of manufacturers as to the quality of their products. [6] Courts have come to construe unqualified statements such as the instant one liberally in favor of injured consumers. [7] Furthermore, the illustrations in the Restatement indicate that the assertion COMPLETELY SAFE BALL WILL NOT HIT PLAYER constitutes a factual representation. Defendants' statement parallels that of an automobile dealer who asserts that the windshield of a car is shatterproof. (Rest. 2d Torts, § 402B, illus. 1, based on Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. (1932) 168 Wash. 456, 461-463 [12 P.2d 409, 15 P.2d 1118, 88 A.L.R. 521]), or that of a manufacturer who guarantees his product is safe if used as directed (Rest. 2d Torts, § 402B, illus. 3, based on Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co. (1958) 167 Ohio St. 244, 259 [4 Ohio Ops.2d 291, 147 N.E.2d 612, 75 A.L.R.2d 103], and Markovich v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc. (1958) 106 Ohio App. 265 [7 Ohio Ops.2d 10, 78 Ohio L. Abs. 111, 149 N.E.2d 181, 186].) Moreover, the materiality of defendants' representation can hardly be questioned; anyone learning to play golf naturally searches for a product that enables him to learn safely. Fred Hauter's testimony that he was impressed with the safety of the item demonstrates the importance of defendants' statement. That Fred's injury occurred while he used the Gizmo as instructed proves the inaccuracy of the assertion on the carton. Defendants, however, maintain that plaintiffs' reliance upon the assurance of safety is not justifiable. (See Rest. 2d Torts, § 402B, com. j.) Alluding to the danger inherent to the sport, defendants argue that the Gizmo is a completely safe training device only when the ball is hit squarely. Defendants repeatedly state that an improperly hit golf shot exposes the player, as well as others nearby, to a serious risk of harm; they point to testimony recounting how an experienced player once hit a shot so poorly that the ball flew between his legs. As a result, contend defendants, plaintiffs cannot reasonably expect the Gizmo to be completely safe under all circumstances, particularly those in which the player hits beneath the ball. Defendants' argument does not withstand analysis. Fred Hauter was not playing golf. He was home on his front lawn learning to play the game with the aid of defendants' supposedly danger-free training device. By practicing in an open, isolated area apart from other golfers and free of objects off which a poorly hit shot could ricochet, Fred Hauter eliminated most of the dangers present during a normal round of play. Moreover, even though certain dangers are inherent in playing golf, the risk that the golfer's own ball will wrap itself around his club and strike the golfer on the follow-through is not among those dangers. Fred Hauter's injury stemmed from a risk inherent in defendants' product, not a risk inherent in the game of golf. Additionally, defendants' analysis would render their representation of safety illusory. Were we to adopt their analysis, the words COMPLETELY SAFE BALL WILL NOT HIT PLAYER would afford protection to consumers only in relatively infrequent instances in which the duffers using the Gizmo managed to hit the ball solidly. Yet defendants' instructions supplied with the Gizmo clearly indicate that defendants anticipated the users of their product would hook, slice and top the ball. They expected their customers to commit the errors that normally plague beginning golfers. Thus, when they declared their product completely safe, the only reasonable inference is that the Gizmo was a safe training device for all golfers regardless of ability and regardless of how squarely they hit the ball. Although defendants claim they did not intend their statement to cover situations such as the one at bar, subjective intent is irrelevant. The question is not what a seller intended, but what the consumer reasonably believed. The rule is one of strict liability for physical harm to the consumer, resulting from a misrepresentation of the character or quality of the chattel sold, even though the misrepresentation is an innocent one, and not made fraudulently or negligently. (Rest. 2d Torts, § 402B, com. a.) (1b) We conclude that Fred Hauter reasonably believed he could use the Gizmo with safety and agree with the trial court that plaintiffs established all the elements of a cause of action for misrepresentation.