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

tortdefendantdamagesappealtrialmotionjury instructions

tortplaintiffdefendantstatuteappealtrial

Related Cases

Virgin v. Fireworks of Tilton, LLC, 172 N.H. 484, 215 A.3d 892, 99 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 910

Facts

James M. Virgin filed a personal injury action against Fireworks of Tilton, LLC and Foursquare Imports, LLC, claiming damages due to an incident involving fireworks sold and distributed by the defendants. The complaint alleged a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. During the proceedings, Foursquare disclosed the identity of the fireworks' manufacturer, a Chinese company, which Virgin sought to strike, arguing that apportionment of fault does not apply to breach of warranty claims. The trial court denied this motion, leading to an interlocutory appeal.

On March 24, 2016, the plaintiff, James M. Virgin, filed the instant action seeking compensation for personal injuries against the defendants, Fireworks of Tilton, LLC (Fireworks of Tilton) and Foursquare Imports, LLC d/b/a AAH Fireworks, LLC (Foursquare).

Issue

Does RSA 507:7-e apply to claims for personal injuries alleging a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under RSA 382-A:2-314, allowing a named defendant to apportion fault to a non-litigant in the supply chain?

The specific question before us in this appeal: whether the statute extends to breach of warranty actions.

Rule

The court determined that RSA 507:7-e, which requires jury instructions on apportioning fault, does not extend to breach of warranty actions under the Uniform Commercial Code.

We conclude that RSA 507:7-e does not extend to breach of warranty actions under the circumstances presented here.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language and historical context of RSA 507:7-e, concluding that it was intended to apply only to tort actions, not to breach of warranty claims. The court emphasized that allowing apportionment in warranty cases would undermine the purpose of implied warranties, which is to ensure that injured consumers can seek full recovery from any seller in the distribution chain without needing to join all potentially liable parties.

The court analyzed the statutory language and historical context of RSA 507:7-e, concluding that it was intended to apply only to tort actions, not to breach of warranty claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that RSA 507:7-e does not apply to breach of warranty actions, and thus, the defendants cannot apportion fault to a non-litigant. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

We answer the interlocutory question in the negative and remand to the trial court.

Who won?

James M. Virgin prevailed in the appeal as the court ruled in his favor regarding the inapplicability of RSA 507:7-e to breach of warranty claims.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Richardson v. Ham, 44 Cal.2d 772, 285 P.2d 269

Atlantic Coast Airlines v. Cook, 857 N.E.2d 989

Seneris v. Haas, 45 Cal.2d 811, 291 P.2d 915, 53 A.L.R.2d 124

Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc., 32 Cal.4th 1138, 88 P.3d 517, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 615, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3886, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5420

Baer v. Slater, 261 Mass. 153, 158 N.E. 328, 54 A.L.R. 1328