Court Opinion

ID: 9848079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:12:28.259238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:00.639168
License: Public Domain

Rees, J.:
Concurring. I concur in the affirmance of the judgments in favor of U.S.D. 490 and in the reversal of the judgments in favor of Sunflower. However, I have some concern as to possible future reliance upon what is said in the majority opinion.
The essence of the school district’s case against Celotex is a products liability claim. As has become all too typical in products liability cases, this case was tried, submitted to the jury and briefed on appeal as one brought on a homogenized theory of recovery; its ingredients are breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and fraud. It therefore is without complete surprise that the record and briefs reflect legal analysis and adoption of positions that approach imprecision and inconsistency. The use of general verdict forms has sealed the findings of the jury in darkness.
Cantrell v. R. D. Werner Co., 226 Kan. 681, 602 P.2d 1326 (1979), is cited to us by Celotex for the proposition that punitive damages are recoverable for breach of express warranty in the sale of goods. The majority opinion refers to Cantrell as a case similar to this case. It is true that both cases involve an express warranty of performance, evidence that the seller knew of prior failures of the product, and a judgment for punitive damages.
Aside from a claim of misconduct of counsel, there were three issues determined in Cantrell. The first was whether there was *365evidence to support a finding of breach of express warranty. The Supreme Court held there was an express warranty of performance and evidence it was breached. The second was whether there was evidence to support a finding of reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights. The Supreme Court held there was. The third was whether the punitive damages award was excessive. The Supreme Court held it was not. The Cantrell decision goes no farther.
Whether punitive damages are recoverable for breach of an express warranty was not an issue decided in Cantrell; the opinion is not authority for the proposition that they are. The opinion of the majority in this case should not be read to hold that they are. A claim for breach of express warranty is in the nature of a contract claim. The rule that punitive damages are not recoverable for breach of contract in the absence of an independent tort as held in Hess v. Jarboe, 201 Kan. 705, 443 P.2d 294 (1968), still stands. Temmen v. Kent-Brown Chen. Co., 227 Kan. 45, 51, 605 P.2d 95 (1980). The punitive damages judgment against Celotex results from a claim of fraud, knowing misrepresentation that the strength and durability of the Bond Ply system equalled or exceeded that of the traditional four-ply system, and evidence to support that claim.
Celotex argues it was error to admit evidence of representations made to others and evidence of Bond Ply system failures, all occurring elsewhere and after the sale of the roofing materials in this case. I find Celotex has insufficiently demonstrated that the particular exhibits to which it refers report representations and roof failures occurring after the sale or sales here involved. The particular dates of sale to the plaintiff are uncertain under the evidence; the challenged exhibits are capable of characterization as internal correspondence and reports of Celotex prepared after the sale or sales to plaintiff but in material part concerning prior or contemporaneous representations and roof failures.
Assuming, however, the exhibits constitute evidence of “later” representations and roof failures, there is the question whether such evidence was admissible. The majority opinion seems to say it was. I disagree. If Celotex breached implied or express warranties, they were breached at the time of sale; the challenged evidence is irrelevant as proof of plaintiff’s case on those theories. As to fraud, I do not read Culp v. Bloss, 203 Kan. 714, 717-718, *366457 P.2d 154 (1969); Frame, Administrator v. Bauman, 202 Kan. 461, 466, 449 P.2d 525 (1969); Brakefield v. Shelton, 76 Kan. 451, 92 Pac. 709 (1907); Minx v. Mitchell, 42 Kan. 688, 22 Pac. 709 (1889); and Hubin v. Shira, 1 Kan. App. 2d 203, 208-210, 563 P.2d 1079 (1977), to go so far as to approve the admission of evidence of any later fraud or later distinct transactions. In my view, they hold no more than that solely for the purpose of proof of knowledge, intent or state of mind, evidence of earlier or substantially contemporaneous distinct transactions and evidence of later conduct connected with the transaction in issue is admissible.
The majority correctly states that “[pfunitive damages are imposed not because of any special merit in the case of the injured party but to punish the wrongdoer for malicious, vindictive, or willful and wanton invasion of the injured party’s rights, the purpose being to restrain and deter others from the commission of like wrongs.” (Emphasis added.) Since evidence of later purportedly heinous conduct of Celotex in its dealings with others is unrelated to its claimed invasion of the rights of the school district, evidence of such other occurrences was inadmissible for the purpose of “proving up” punitive damages. Celotex was to be punished in this case for invading the school district’s rights, not for invasions of the rights of others. If the exhibits were evidence of later occurrences involving others, they were not admissible as part of an evidentiary foundation for the assessment of punitive damages.
I am unable to approve the admission into evidence of the challenged exhibits as the majority apparently does. In my limited research I have failed to find Kansas or other authority applicable to this case that authorizes the admission of such “later” evidence beyond the bounds I have described. Treating the exhibits as “later” evidence, I do not view them as admissible proof of “recklessness” vis-a-vis this plaintiff and I find them irrelevant evidence as to breach of warranty of performance as to this plaintiff.
Although I believe that if the exhibits were truly evidence of later events their admission into evidence was improper, plaintiff’s failure on appeal to affirmatively establish error in their admission precludes our finding of prejudicial error.