Court Opinion

ID: 9605257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:32:28.32236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:26.809111
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice
(dissenting) :
*249I respectfully dissent and would affirm the order of the lower court, which relied upon our ruling in Marchant v. Mitchell Distributing Co., 270 S. C. 29, 240 S. E. (2d) 511 (1977). The crane here involved is the same crane which we held to be “not defective.” Our opinion involved an action against the local distributor; here we have the same claim against the manufacturer.
In our former opinion we unanimously said:
“We have held that the judge properly ruled that the crane was not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous. We also hold that there is no evidence of breach of warranty. The crane did not fail or malfunction. It was merchantable and fit for the purpose for which it was sold.” (Emphasis added.)
The showing before the court does not warrant a different ruling as relates to the manufacturer. Since we held that the crane was not defective, it follows that there can be no negligent design.
I would affirm.