Part 4- Sales, Chapter 20: Product Liability, Doc 13

Summaries and Analyses of Product Liability Case Problems 11.Duane Martin vs. Joseph Harris Company (Implied Warranty Disclaimers in Agricultural Sales)    Issue: Martin experienced significant crop loss due to untreated seeds and sued for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Analysis: The clause “IT MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED” attempts to disclaim implied warranties. This is permissible under UCC § 2–316(2) if it is conspicuous. However, Martin could argue that the clause is unconscionable, as it shifts all risk to the buyer despite Harris’s change in seed treatment. Conclusion: Martin may challenge the disclaimer based on unconscionability, given the unexpected risk introduced by Harris’s decision to discontinue treatment, though success depends on demonstrating the unfairness of the disclaimer in this context. 12.Wright vs. Cigarette Manufacturers (Strict Liability for Design Defects in Iowa)   Issue: The Iowa Supreme Court had to determine the standards for applying strict liability in design defect cases, referencing the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Answer: The court adopted the Restatement (Third) test, requiring plaintiffs to prove that a design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous and that there was a safer, feasible alternative design. This sets a standard for plaintiffs to show both defectiveness and a viable safer design. 13.Richard Jimenez vs. Sears (Product Misuse Defense in Strict Liability)    Issue: Jimenez was injured due to alleged misuse of a grinder. Analysis: In non-comparative fault states, proving misuse completely absolves Sears of liability. In comparative fault states, misuse would proportionally reduce Jimenez’s recovery. Conclusion: In a comparative fault state, Jimenez could still recover some damages if Sears is partially at fault. 14.James Newton II vs. Standard Candy Co. (Implied Warranty and Negligence Claims for Defective Candy)   Issue: Newton alleges damages from biting an undeveloped peanut in a Goo Goo Cluster, invoking breach of warranty and negligence. Analysis: Merchantability might be judged by the "reasonable expectations" test or "foreign-natural" test. Under "reasonable expectations," a court may find unmerchantability if consumers expect no harm from an undeveloped  peanut in candy. Negligence claims require Newton to prove a failure in manufacturing or failure to warn of risks. Conclusion: Newton’s strongest claim is for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the reasonable expectation test. 15.Bainbridge and Fingarette vs. 3M (Implied Warranties in Business Transactions)    Issue: Bainbridge and Fingarette sued for economic losses from faulty film emulsion and backcoat sold by 3M. Analysis: Since two companies purchased directly, they can claim breach of express and implied warranties. However, for the other two, the question is whether they can claim third-party economic loss, which Minnesota law often restricts to direct buyers in product liability cases. Conclusion: The Minnesota Supreme Court likely restricted recovery for economic losses to direct purchasers, based on privity requirements. Preemption Defense: Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (2011)  Summary: In Williamson v. Mazda, the Supreme Court held that federal regulations allowing manufacturers to choose between lap belts and lap-andshoulder belts for rear aisle seats do not preempt state law tort claims. The Court reasoned that, although federal law permitted lap-only belts, it did not intend to eliminate state-based safety claims, as the regulation aimed to give manufacturers flexibility, not to block additional state safety claims. This decision limits preemption, preserving state tort claims where federal standards provide flexibility rather than exclusive guidelines.