Opinion ID: 2202592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Breach of Implied Warranty and Strict Liability

Text: In her complaint, Payne set forth two theories of liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty. Payne later asserted that a strict liability cause of action was an implied pendent claim under the warranty count of the complaint. This problem of pleading need not detain us, however, because in the context of a claim that the product manufacturer's inadequate warnings caused injury to a consumer of the product, the plaintiff's burden under implied warranty and strict liability theories is identical. This jurisdiction recognizes both tort and warranty theories of product liability. Warranty, though it has become associated with principles of contract, originated as a tort action, similar to an action for deceit. Berman v. Watergate West, Inc., 391 A.2d 1351, 1355 (D.C.1978). [2] Although the warranty action sounded in tort, the warranty itself, in early cases, invariably arose out of a contract between the two parties. [3] Warranty therefore became inextricably linked to contract and an action on a warranty came to be considered a contract action. Standard contract concepts also became affixed to warranty actions, requiring a showing of privity of contract between the parties to an action on a warranty, allowing disclaimer of the warranty, and requiring notice by the complaining party to the manufacturer of a defect in the goods. [4] Nevertheless, [i]t is undisputed that the original tort form of action [in warranty] . . . still survives to the present day, and may everywhere be maintained. [5] Recognizing that [m]anufacturers should properly assume those burdens incident to the cost of doing business, even if they are separated by several links in a chain of distribution from the ultimate consumer, this court in Picker X-Ray Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 185 A.2d 919 (D.C. 1962), held that warranty liability for defectively manufactured products should no longer be dependent upon any contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer or user. Id. at 921. This court in effect stripped the warranty action of its contractual baggage and reestablished the original tort action for warranty free of contract associations. Moreover, warranty liability was to be imposed without regard to concepts of negligence and fault, as defined by negligence standards. Id. at 922. This warranty liability was instead to be a form of strict liability: a plaintiff could recover if he established, first, that the product was defective, i.e., not reasonably fit for its intended purpose or not of merchantable quality; and second, that as a result of the defect, the product caused injury. Id. In 1965, the American Law Institute incorporated these standards into section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts. [6] Comment m to section 402A made clear that There is nothing in this Section which would prevent any court from treating the rule stated as a matter of warranty to the user or consumer. But if this is done, it should be recognized and understood that the warranty is a very different kind of warranty from those usually found in the sale of goods, and that it is not subject to the various contract rules which have grown up to surround such sales. This court, in Cottom v. McGuire Funeral Service, Inc., 262 A.2d 807 (D.C.1970), adopted the reasoning of comment m, finding that to a large extent [it] is true that the doctrines of implied warranty and strict liability in tort are but two labels for the same legal right and remedy, as the governing principles are identical. Id. at 808. Under either theory, the court held, there is a liability imposed for injury caused by placing a defective product into the stream of commerce in the District of Columbia. Id. at 809. In sum, in the context of this case, where no issues unique to warranty, like disclaimer or notice, are presented, a claim of strict liability in tort was effectively made out by the count in the complaint for breach of warranty. See also Fisher v. Sibley Memorial Hospital, 403 A.2d 1130, 1133 (D.C.1979) (actions for breach of warranty and strict liability in tort [are] expressions of a single basic public policy as to liability for defective products[;] it would [therefore] be inconsistent to hold that the doctrine of strict tort liability applies to [these facts] while rejecting plaintiff's breach of warranty claim.); Basko v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 416 F.2d 417, 427 (2d Cir.1969) (under Connecticut law, not error to refuse to instruct jury, in failure to warn case, on theory of implied warranty in addition to strict liability, since in this context they are effectively identical).