Opinion ID: 1656048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose

Text: ¶ 19. The Plaintiffs contend that they were told by Ott & Lee that the casket was top of the line. Before the Plaintiffs selected the wooden casket, the employees of Ott & Lee informed the Plaintiffs that a wooden casket could not be sealed like a metal casket. The Plaintiffs admit that they were aware that a wooden casket would not seal. Ott & Lee suggested a concrete vault be used with a wooden casket which the Plaintiffs purchased. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' determinative factor as to the chosen casket was purely appearance. The Defendants argue that in choosing the casket the Plaintiffs never expressed any concern over how long the remains would be preserved. In fact, the Plaintiffs do not assert any specified time or number of years that they expected the remains to be preserved. Furthermore, nothing in the record demonstrates that the remains were not in fact properly preserved or had been affected by any cracks in the casket at the time the Plaintiffs had the body exhumed for the autopsy. ¶ 20. Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-315 (Rev.2002) establishes the foundation for the concept of an implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose. That statute provides in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided in this section, where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.... Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-315 (emphasis added). In order to recover under the theory of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, a plaintiff must present evidence sufficient for the jury to find: (1) the seller at the time of the contracting had reason to know the particular purpose for which the goods were required; (2) the reliance by the plaintiff as buyer upon the skill or judgment of the seller to select suitable goods, and (3) the goods were unfit for the particular purpose. Garner v. S & S Livestock Dealers, Inc., 248 So.2d 783, 785 (Miss.1971). See also Lacy v. Morrison, 906 So.2d 126, 131 (Miss.Ct.App.2004). The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does not arise unless there is reliance on the seller by the buyer, and the seller selects goods which are unfit for the particular purpose. Garner, 248 So.2d at 785. ¶ 21. During discovery, depositions were taken from the Plaintiffs, Susan Moss, Tracy Nichols, and Kenny Moss. These depositions, which were provided to the trial court on motion for summary judgment, demonstrate that the Plaintiffs purchased the wooden casket for its aesthetic value. Susan Moss testified: We spotted the cherry wood casket, and he walked us over there to it. Ray Pardue walked us over there to it and we all decided, standing thereus fourthat it looked like our mother. That'sI meanshe had everything in her house was cherry wood. I mean, it just look like her. We asked Ray about the casket. I mean, I'm not stupid. I know a casket won't seala wood casket. ¶ 22. Tracy Nichols testified: We were looking at the different caskets, and when we saw the wood casket, we knew that we wanted this one for Mother because it looked just like her a wood cherry casket. And we were just allwas in agreement with it. ¶ 23. In his deposition, Kenny Moss testified that the reason he chose this casket was because his mother just liked cherry wood furniture. He further stated, [i]t just suited her. ¶ 24. The trial court determined that summary judgment was appropriate. In its findings of fact, the trial court stated: This particular casket was chosen because their mother was especially fond of cherry wood furniture, and they felt she would have been happy about the decision. In the trial court's conclusion of law, the trial court stated: The Court is convinced from the deposition testimony that the Plaintiffs were well aware of the characteristic differences between a wooden casket as compared to a metal one, but that the former was selected because of their mother's love of cherry wood. The trial court found the fitness purpose aspect was served during the time the decedent's body was placed in the casket and viewed by family members, loved ones [,] and friends at the funeral home. ¶ 25. Here, the evidence did not justify the submission of this case to a jury on the issue of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Nothing in the record provides that the Plaintiffs identified any particular purpose to the Defendants when the casket was selected. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the Plaintiffs sought to preserve their mother's remains for some unspecified, indefinite period of time in the wooden casket, the record is completely devoid of any proof that the body had been damaged in any way by the alleged problems with the casket. As such, the burial had preserved the remains until the Plaintiffs had their mother's remains unearthed and the autopsy performed. We find the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on this issue.