Opinion ID: 2072957
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of implied warranties and strict liability to defendant Ries.

Text: Plaintiffs contend that Ries was a seller of goods under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code and thus subject to either the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose or the implied warranty of merchantability. The pertinent part of Minn.St. 336.2314 provides: (1) Unless excluded or modified (section 336.2316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale. (2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as (a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used ; and (d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and (e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and (f) conform to the promises or affirmation of fact made on the container or label if any. (3) Unless excluded or modified (section 336.2316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade. (Italics supplied.) Also, Minn.St. 336.2315 provides: 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. Plaintiffs argue that both defendants qualify as merchants within the meaning of Article 2 and thus are subject to the warranty provisions of those sections. Defendants, unfortunately, do not address themselves to this argument. The entire brief of defendant Ries argues that the jury must have found that carbon monoxide was not the proximate cause of Mrs. O'Laughlin's injuries. The jury, however, never reached that issue nor did they respond to it on the special verdict submitted to them. They merely found that defendants were not negligent. [1] As applied to defendant Ries, the issue is not whether he is a merchant, but whether the alleged defect arose out of a sale of goods. While the scope section of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code applies to transactions in goods (see, Minn.St. 336.2102), the warranty sections specifically require a sale. (See, Minn.St. 336.2314 and Minn.St. 336.2315.) The present situation presents something slightly different from a pure sale situation where goods are sold to a customer and do not require the performance of any substantial amount of services. Plaintiffs do not allege that the furnace was defective when it left the manufacturer or that the furnace malfunctioned, but instead claim that the installation of the furnace by Ries was faulty. Thus, the issue raised is whether the implied warranties of the Uniform Commercial Code apply to the improper installation of a product. Although the issue is a matter of some dispute in other jurisdictions, the particular instance involved here is controlled by a previous Minnesota decision under the Uniform Sales Act, Kopet v. Klein, 275 Minn. 525, 148 N.W.2d 385 (1967). In Kopet, the defendant sold a water softener to the plaintiff and the purchase price included the cost of installation. After the defendant seller installed the unit in the plaintiff's home, it failed to function properly and the buyer brought an action for breach of warranty. On appeal this court stated (275 Minn. 529, 148 N.W.2d 389): The liability of the seller to the buyer for negligence was very largely superseded by strict liability for breach of warranty under the Uniform Sales Act. Thus a breach of warranty giving rise to strict liability does not depend upon any knowledge of defects on the part of the seller or any negligence. Prosser, Torts (3 ed.) § 95. It is clear that lack of negligence on the part of a seller will not prevent a buyer from recovering for breach of warranty. This, however, is not to say that a breach of warranty may not arise from negligence. Defendant asserts that the court erred in informing the jury that breach of implied warranty could arise by faulty installation of the unit. Essentially, the question raised by this contention seems to be whether the installation of the unit was a part of the sale covered by the warranty. In Vold, Sales (2 ed.) § 1, p. 4, the author states: `In certain types of sales, too, certain services, such as to deliver elsewhere, or to install, are many times included.' (Italics supplied.)       The rule thus seems to be that the warranty applies where the sale involves not only a transfer of a chattel but also some related service, such as construction. We think the rule applies to this case. Plaintiff had never owned a water softener before and he knew nothing about how to install or operate one when he made the purchase from defendant. We think it clear from the record that plaintiff was purchasing an installed water softener. Thus, on the basis of Kopet there can be little doubt that the installation of the furnace by Ries was covered by the implied warranties of the Uniform Commercial Code. [2] In addition to implied warranties, plaintiffs also argue that the trial court should have instructed the jury on strict liability in tort under Restatement, Torts 2d, § 402 A, which provides: § 402 A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. There is also ample precedent for applying strict liability in tort for defective products to defendant Ries. In Worrell v. Barnes, 87 Nev. 204, 205, 484 P.2d 573, 574 (1971), the Supreme Court of Nevada was presented with the following issue:    [W]hether the doctrine [of strict liability] will be applied to the composition and installation of a residential gas system which was added to the gas system that was originally installed in the construction of a house. [3] A contractor had installed a leaky gas fitting while remodeling the plaintiff's home and the defect later caused a fire in the plaintiff's home. In applying the doctrine of strict liability to the installation of the gas fitting, the court stressed the inherent danger of dealing with gas and the purchaser's reliance on the superior skill and knowledge of the contractor. Thus, under either theory, defendant Ries could have been subjected to liability. Under the strict liability theory, plaintiffs must show (1) that the product purchased was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous for its use, (2) that such defective condition existed when the product left the hands of defendant, and (3) that the defect was the proximate cause of the injury Mrs. O'Laughlin suffered. Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 329, 188 N.W.2d 426, 432 (1971); Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 288 Minn. 83, 179 N.W.2d 64 (1970); Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing, Inc., 285 Minn. 32, 46, 171 N.W.2d 201, 210 (1969) (Rogosheske, J., concurring specially). See, Comment, 1 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 207.