Court Opinion

ID: 9688001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:56:38.236828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:34.023387
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). Ford Motor Company presents two viable points on this motion for rehearing: (1) Must the cause of action stated in terms of breach of warranty be dismissed; and (2) does the fact that two cases cited in the decision have been overruled affect the judgment of this court in any way?
Ford asserts that appellant’s failure to plead that notice of the alleged breach of warranty was given should result in the dismissal of that portion of the complaint charging Ford with breach of warranty. The giving of such notice within a reasonable time-is a condition precedent to recovery. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Sunde (1963), 19 Wis. 2d 129, 136, 137, 119 N. W. 2d 321. A complaint is defective if it does not allege that such notice was given. 77 C. J. S., Sales, p. 1276, sec. 362(e). The failure to plead such notice must be raised- by demurrer. Hellenbrand v. Bowar (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 264, 268, 114 N. W. 2d 418, 115 N. W. 2d 533. In the instant case, Ford demurred to the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that demurrer was overruled by the trial court. No appeal was ever taken from the order overruling the demurrer. The question of lack of notice was not presented in Ford’s motion for summary judgment. There*360bfore, the question of notice is not properly before this court. As noted in the decision, Ford’s answer alleges lack of notice, and the issue was properly preserved as an issue of fact.
Ford notes that the decision in this case cites two cases from New Hampshire which have been overruled by Kelley v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft (1970), 110 N. H. 369, 268 Atl. 2d 837. The overruled cases were cited as illustrations of the views of various courts of the common-law rule with respect to the propriety of maintaining a wrongful-death action based on breach of warranty. In New Hampshire, statutes were enacted to change the common-law rule, which prompted the court in Kelley to overrule the two cases cited in the opinion. New Hampshire now permits a wrongful-death action to be brought where breach of warranty is alleged, and now provides further support for this court’s decision in the instant case.
In the original decision in this case,1 we stated at page 359:
“Clearly, the appellant’s allegations relating to breach of warranty in this state are sufficient to permit her to maintain an action under the Wisconsin wrongful-death statute.”
This language is withdrawn and the following statement is substituted:
“Clearly, allegations relating to breach of warranty in this state are sufficient to maintain an action under the Wisconsin wrongful-death statute.”
Motion for rehearing denied.

 Schnabl v. Ford Motor Co., ante, p. 345, 195 N. W. 2d 602.