Opinion ID: 2045861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: appropriateness of doctrine in this case

Text: Even if this court were inclined to adopt the doctrine, we decline to do so in the instant case because there is no evidence in the record that the Stoneses believed Sears was the manufacturer or that Sears held itself out as the manufacturer of the grill in question. In this regard, we note that there is no evidence in the record that the name Sears was on the grill. In fact, the assembly instructions for the grill explicitly referred to it as a Kenmore outdoor gas grill. While Kenmore may be commonly associated with Sears, there is no evidence supporting that contention in the record before us. The Stoneses give great weight to the fact that Sears sold a customer maintenance agreement plan along with the grill. The fact that this plan closely resembles a warranty does not convince us that it causes the public to believe that Sears manufactured the grill. Indeed, Sears' technician Dickman testified that Sears often provides service to customers for non-Sears appliances. While a grill owner's manual introduced into the record with Belina's testimony contained a picture of a grill with the word Sears on its base, there is simply no evidence that the grill in the picture was the same type of grill sold to the Stoneses. In fact, the manual was dated 1977, some 10 years before the Stoneses purchased their grill. Because the record in the instant case simply does not support a cause of action against Sears under the apparent manufacturer doctrine, we leave for another day whether the doctrine is in conflict with the plain language of § 25-21,181. The Stoneses' remaining assignment of error is that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact exist. To adequately address this contention, we must examine each theory of recovery separately.