Opinion ID: 1255271
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Defective Product

Text: As stated by the defendants, the question presented by their second assignment of error is whether the Swineys' continued use of the stove despite their admitted knowledge of its defective condition bar[s] the claim of reliance upon the implied warranty. The defendants say that the Swineys learned the day they first used the stove that the clock, the oven, and the burners malfunctioned and that, notwithstanding that knowledge, they continued to use the stove and ignored the instruction in the Owners' Guide to report the defect and have it repaired. Citing Layne-Atlantic Co. v. Koppers Co., 214 Va. 467, 473, 201 S.E.2d 609, 614 (1974), the defendants argue that there can be no recovery ... for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability when there has been a misuse of the article supplied and that the trial court erred when it failed to hold that continued use of a defective product constitutes misuse. We decline to apply such a rule to the facts in this case. It is true that the plaintiffs realized that the clock did not keep the right time and that the temperature controls did not work properly. But the stove functioned for its intended purpose for nearly nine months, and there is no evidence of record to show that the Swineys' continued use adversely affected its function. We have said that there can be no recovery against the manufacturer for breach of ... implied warranties when there has been an unforeseen misuse of the article supplied. Featherall v. Firestone, 219 Va. 949, 964, 252 S.E.2d 358, 367 (1979) (emphasis supplied). We hold, however, that continued use of a product with a latent manufacturer's defect is not a defense to a consumer's claim for breach of implied warranty when the defect merely restricts the utility of the product in the manner it did here. In such case, use by the consumer is foreseeable and cannot be characterized fairly as misuse.