Court Opinion

ID: 9766210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:37:01.588951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:20.361020
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing
Appellees have produced evidence that the faucets in the house trailer leaked. There is no evidence that this condition caused physical damage to the trailer. Ap-pellees were damaged to the extent of the cost of repair. There was evidence that the roof leaked, but there is no evidence that the leaks were the result of an inherent defect, or of defective workmanship, or material. It cannot be inferred that the roof leaked at the time it left the hands of the manufacturer. There was testimony that the floor had buckled. Since this condition may well have been caused by the leaking roof, it cannot be inferred that it existed at the time the trailer was sold by the manufacturer. There is no evidence that the condition of the floor caused any physical damage to the house trailer. Similarly, the testimony *828that the frame “is bending” does not establish physical harm to the trailer caused by the bending frame.
In the absence of evidence from which it can be inferred that defects in existence when the trailer was sold by the manufacturer caused physical harm to the trailer, as opposed to economic loss to the purchaser, the doctrine of strict liability is not applicable, and venue cannot be sustained in Walker County.
Appellee tried this case on the theory that he could recover for economic loss under the doctrine of strict liability in tort. His position is supported by cases from other jurisdictions, and the matter has not been settled in this state. It is obvious that the facts were not fully developed. We remain of the opinion that in the interest of justice the case should be remanded for a new trial.
The motions for rehearing of both appellant and of appellees are denied.