Court Opinion

ID: 9734808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:46:48.384744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:51.427122
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion that concludes that strict liability in tort cannot be asserted by a commercial plaintiff as a ground for recovery of purely economic injury.
I must dissent, however, to that portion of the majority opinion that concludes that the negligence of a manufacturer cannot be asserted by a commercial plaintiff as a ground for recovery of economic injury.
Actions based on negligence have long been recognized in commercial contexts in this state. See Nieman v. Channellene Oil & Mfg. Co., 112 Minn. 11, 127 N.W. 394 (1910) (retailer recovered damages from the *163wholesaler for loss of business resulting from the sale of contaminated cooking oil); Ellis v. Lindmark, 177 Minn. 390, 225 N.W. 395 (1929) (recovery allowed for economic damages to plaintiffs’ poultry business resulting from, inter alia, wholesaler’s mislabeling of raw linseed oil as cod liver oil). The majority is, therefore, abrogating rights long recognized to exist in commercial plaintiffs.
There is no indication that the legislature intended to preempt negligence recovery when it enacted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). There are no references in the text or the comments of the UCC from which such preemption can be inferred. Moreover, Minn.Stat. § 336.1-102(3) (1980) provides that the general obligations of the UCC, such as “reasonableness” and “care,” may not be disclaimed by agreement. This strongly suggests that the legislature had no interest in protecting negligent commercial parties.
Legislative enactments are not to be construed in derogation of well-established principles of common law unless the express language or the necessary implications of the particular statute require such construction. Fuller v. City of Mankato, 248 Minn. 342, 347, 80 N.W.2d 9, 12 (1956); Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 465, 68 N.W.2d 376, 382 (1955). Because there is no clear indication of preemption in this case, I believe the action for negligently inflicted economic loss in commercial contexts survives the enactment of the UCC.
Further, there is no basis for the contention that negligence recovery for economic loss would “emasculate” the remedies provided through the UCC. Cf. Santor v. A. & M. Karagheusian, Inc., 44 N.J. 52, 207 A.2d 305 (1965) (allowing implied warranty recovery).1 The remedies provided by the UCC merely supplement the negligence theory of recovery. UCC 2-318, Comment 2, indicates that the expansion of existing warranties to the buyer’s household and guests should be “accomplish[ed] * * * without any derogation of any right or remedy resting on negligence.” This is a significant indication that the UCC is not designed to exclude negligence from its scheme of remedies.
The continued recognition of negligence recovery for economic loss will not diminish the use or effectiveness of the Code remedies but merely provide an additional means of compelling production of quality manufactured goods. The majority’s decision effectively restricts the ability of commercial purchasers to require the manufacturers to provide products that will not result in damage to property. The duty to which manufacturers can be held under negligence standards is not so onerous that this court must step in to relieve them of that duty.
Finally, under the majority opinion, distribution of defective products is only subject to a negligence action when the defect results in personal injury or damages to other property. It seems to me imprudent to permit manufacturers to sell negligently produced and potentially dangerous products and only to make them accountable when a person is harmed or other property is damaged. The better approach is to require accountability when any injury, economic or otherwise, occurs. Insistence on such accountability will provide a definite incentive to manufacture only quality products that ensure the safety of all consumers.
SHERAN, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

. In addition, see Cova v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., 26 Mich.App. 602, 609-11, 182 N.W.2d 800, 806-10 (1970); Russell v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Or. 587, 588-93, 575 P.2d 1383, 1384-86 (1978); Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers, 557 S.W.2d 77, 80-83 (Tex.1977); Berg v. General Motors Corp., 87 Wash.2d 584, 587-94, 555 P.2d 818, 819-23 (1976); City of La Crosse v. Schubert, Schroeder & Assocs., 72 Wis.2d 38, 43-45, 240 N.W.2d 124, 127-28 (1976).