Opinion ID: 2024672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Strict Liability in Tort Claim[5]

Text: Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the strict liability claim because the damage sustained by Hall Farms was not sudden, major damage as required by the Strict Product Liability Act. [6] Ind. Code Ann. §§ 33-1-1.5-1 through 33-1-1.5-8 (West 1983 and Supp. 1992). The Act subjects sellers of defective products to liability for physical harm caused by that product to the user or consumer or to his property. Ind. Code Ann. § 33-1-1.5-3 (West Supp. 1992). Physical harm is defined as bodily injury, death, loss of services, and rights arising from any such injuries, as well as sudden, major damage to property. The term does not include gradually evolving damage to property or economic losses from such damage.  Ind. Code § 33-1-1.5-2 (emphasis added). The undisputed evidence establishes that the Act does not permit recovery of the damages claimed in this case. In earlier versions of the Act and at common law, there was no restriction on the type of property damage recoverable. However, the Act was amended in 1983 to limit recovery for property damage to sudden, major damage. Ind. Code § 33-1-1.5-2; Reed v. Central Soya (1993), Ind., 621 N.E.2d 1069, 1071. In Reed, we examined the meaning of sudden, major damage and concluded that where recovery for property damage is sought under the Act, such damage must have happened quickly, unexpectedly and be of a calamitous nature. We also held that the question of whether sudden, major damage had occurred is a question of law, taking into account such matters as the nature of the defect alleged, the type of risk presented and the manner in which the damage arose. 621 N.E.2d at 1071. Thus, in Reed, we concluded that where cows had become ill over a period of weeks after consuming tainted feed, the damage was not sudden, major damage to property. Id. Similarly, where a farmer loses numerous chickens over a period of several months, such damage is not recoverable under the Act because that loss is not sudden, major damage. Mac's Eggs, Inc. v. Rite-Way Agri Dist., 656 F. Supp. 720 (N.D.Ind. 1986). By comparison, the malfunction of an electrical switch resulting in numerous chickens suffocating in a single episode is sufficient to support the inference at the pleading stage that the damage was sudden, major damage to property. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. v. Lake Shore Elec. Corp., 744 F. Supp. 864, 871 (S.D.Ind. 1990). Defendants argue that the damage here was not sudden, major damage because it occurred gradually over a number of months. In fact, Mark Hall testified that the fruit blotch infection was an extremely slow growing thing. The bacteria affected the watermelon crop over a period of months, first appearing in the greenhouse and progressing over time to the melons themselves. We hold that this is not the type of sudden, major damage to property contemplated in the Act; but is instead, gradually evolving damage to property and economic loss from that damage in the form of reduced crop yields. Additionally, we note that Hall Farms' claim is based on damage to the product itself. Strict liability in tort is inapplicable to claims of such damage because the proper remedy is warranty. See Sanco, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 771 F.2d 1081, 1086 (7th Cir.1985); Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill.2d 69, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 753, 435 N.E.2d 443, 450 (1982). For the reasons stated above, Petoseed and Rispens are entitled to summary judgment on the strict liability claim.