Opinion ID: 2221997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: breach of implied warranty claim

Text: The Pfeifers also allege that Du Pont breached an implied warranty that the product was suitable and fit for the purposes for which it was sold and intended to be used. The product in this case was a herbicide suitable for controlling weeds in corn. Therefore, the ordinary purpose was the control of weeds in corn. Neb. U.C.C. § 2-315 (Reissue 1992) states: 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 unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose. In this case, Pfeifer testified as follows: [Defendant's attorney] Q. Is there something that DuPont should have told you, as you sit here today, that they didn't tell you, that would have made a difference in how you applied the product or what you did with the product or  A. I guess I don't understand what they mean by  for one thing, on their postemergence says do not apply under cold and wet weather conditions. Well, I didn't, it was warm and dry. Later on it did turn cold and wet, they don't say how much later on if it turns cold and wet, and they don't define cold or wet. You know, they could  cold or wet to them might mean a month, or might mean a month to me or, you know, who knows, you know. You define cold and wet and define how long and, like I say, it says there, don't put it on corn under these conditions. Well, it was in the mid 80s and that's pretty warm for  for May, and it was dry, too. Q. Okay. And that's your recollection, although you didn't take notes of the weather conditions at the time? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Fair enough. So, if I understand  and I appreciate the fact that your attorney may present some other legal theory or may offer expert testimony, but, so I understand, your complaint with the product is you don't feel as though the label instructions were clear enough or definite enough for your use of the product? [Plaintiffs' attorney]: I don't know that it's the instructions exactly. I mean  [Defendant's attorney] Q. Well, the information contained within this pamphlet that accompanies purchase of the product; is that your gripe? A. Yes. .... [Defendant's attorney] Q. In paragraph 7 of your [original] petition, you state that the defendant failed to warn plaintiffs that such change in the weather would adversely affect the growth of plaintiffs' crop; is that your complaint with the product in this case? A. My complaint is that the corn was damaged, the yield was down, and, as far as I'm concerned, their label doesn't say  doesn't  you know, it says if it turns cold. Well, what's cold, and, you know, how long after is cold. You put it on when it's 80 degrees, that's not cold. Q. Okay. My question is: Is that what you're complaining about, what the label said, or what it didn't say? A. Basically. [Plaintiffs' attorney]: Maybe he has other complaints, too, counsel, which have to do with certain expert witnesses, and we may decide to amend his petition. I'm just giving you fair warning. [Defendant's attorney] Q. As you sit here today, Mr. Pfeifer, can you think of anything else wrong with the product, that you're aware of, that you would complain about? A. Well, no. The above testimony of Pfeifer shows that his complaints were label based. If the action is label based, it is preempted by FIFRA. See, e.g., Grenier v. Vermont Log Bldgs., Inc., 96 F.3d 559 (1st Cir.1996) (favorably cited by this court in Ackles v. Luttrell, 252 Neb. 273, 561 N.W.2d 573 (1997), that because negligence and warranty actions dealt specifically with labeling-based claims, they were preempted by FIFRA); Welchert v. American Cyanamid, Inc., 59 F.3d 69 (8th Cir. 1995) (express warranty claim based on label's statement with regard to herbicide's carryover effect is preempted by FIFRA); Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d 516 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 913, 114 S.Ct. 300, 126 L.Ed.2d 248 (1993) (to extent implied warranty claim depends upon inadequacies in labeling or packaging, § 136v of FIFRA preempts claim). Therefore, we determine that the Pfeifers' implied warranty is preempted.