Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortplaintiffdefendantliabilityappealtrialstrict liabilityjury instructions
tortplaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilityappealtrialmotionwillstrict liability

Related Cases

Buckaloo v. Johnson, 14 Cal.3d 815, 537 P.2d 865, 122 Cal.Rptr. 745
View Case »
Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal.4th 881, 69 P.3d 473, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 634, 66 U.S.P.Q.2d 1954, 31 Media L. Rep. 1774, 118 A.L.R.5th 727, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4586, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5834
View Case »
Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc., 351 Or. 1, 261 P.3d 1215
View Case »
Osborne v. Keeney, 399 S.W.3d 1
View Case »
Sinclair v. Merck & Co., Inc., 195 N.J. 51, 948 A.2d 587, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 18,011
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

O’Laughlin v. Minnesota Natural Gas Co., 253 N.W.2d 826, 21 UCC Rep.Serv. 1258

Facts

On January 8, 1973, Mrs. O'Laughlin was severely burned after collapsing onto the hot grate of a gas floor furnace in her home. She had just walked through the living room when she felt a wave of heat and collapsed. The plaintiffs alleged that the furnace was improperly installed by the subcontractor, John L. Ries, and that this faulty installation led to the incident. The jury found the defendants not negligent, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.

On the morning of January 8, 1973, Mrs. O'Laughlin was severely burned after she collapsed onto the hot grate of a gas floor furnace in her home.

Issue

Whether the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on implied warranties and strict liability constituted prejudicial error in a products-liability action.

The principal issue is whether in a products-liability action it was prejudicial error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury on the implied warranties which may accompany a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code, or on strict liability in tort under Restatement, Torts 2d, s 402 A.

Rule

The court applied the principles of implied warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code and strict liability in tort under Restatement, Torts 2d, s 402 A, which holds that a seller is liable for physical harm caused by a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user.

As this court explained in Kopet v. Klein, 275 Minn. 525, 529, 148 N.W.2d 385, 389 (1967), in regard to implied warranties: 'It is clear that lack of negligence on the part of a seller will not prevent a buyer from recovering for breach of warranty.'

Analysis

The court determined that the subcontractor, Ries, was subject to implied warranties due to the installation of the furnace, which was considered part of the sale. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had presented evidence suggesting that the installation was defective and that this defect could have been the proximate cause of Mrs. O'Laughlin's injuries. The refusal to instruct the jury on these points was deemed prejudicial.

Thus, on the basis of Kopet there can be little doubt that the installation of the furnace by Ries was covered by the implied warranties of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the decision regarding the Minnesota Natural Gas Company but reversed the decision concerning John L. Ries, remanding the case for a new trial with proper jury instructions on implied warranties and strict liability.

Accordingly, we affirm as to defendant Minnesota Natural Gas Company, and reverse as to defendant John L. Ries, and remand for a new trial in which the trial court must give instructions on the implied warranties and strict liability in regard to defendant Ries.

Who won?

The defendants, John L. Ries and Minnesota Natural Gas Company, prevailed in the District Court as the jury found them not negligent.

The jury found defendants not negligent and plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and from denial of their motion for a new trial on the ground the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on plaintiffs' claim of breach of implied warranty and strict liability.

You must be