|
Crandell
v Larkin
[19**]
Author:- Sam
Biers
Relevant
Facts: Mrs. Crandell, Pl, purchased a used Coronado clothes dryer
from Larkin and Jones, Df (3rd party). The dryer
had a tag affixed on it which described the machine as “Larkin
and Jones Quality,” which was “Tag-Tested,” and
“Guaranteed.” Df, delivered and installed the
dryer the same day as purchase. Two weeks later Pl asked
her son to place a blanket in the dryer to dry. 15-20
minutes later smoke began to come through the furnace vents.
Pl opened the dryer door w/ wet towels b/c flames were coming out
the front. By the time the fire dept arrived the fire had
spread to other areas. Total damges were in excess of
$25,000. Fire dept personnel testified the sole ignition
source of the fire was inside the dryer.
Legal
Issue(s): Whether strict liability applies to cover the
commercial sale of used clothes dryer?
Court’s
Holding: Yes
Procedure:
Trial ct granted a motion to dismiss products liability; Reversed
and remanded entry of judgment in accordance w/ stipulated damage
amount.
Law
or Rule(s): One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise
distributing products who sells or distributes a defective
product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property
caused by the defect.
Court
Rationale: The Restatement neither expressly includes or excludes
commercial sellers of used products from its coverage. Its
coverage applies to “one who sells any product.”
The sale of used products may not be found to generate the kind
of expectations of safety that are created by the introduction of
new products into the stream of commerce. Used product merchants
who rebuild or recondition goods are subject to the strict
liability doctrine. The application of S/L to sellers of
used products, who rebuild or recondition those products, helps
to protect the reasonble expectations of consumers.
Expert
witnesses prepared a report and testified that the clothes dryer
was defective. The two thermostats malfunctioned, allowing
the heat element to rise to temps high enough to cause the
blanket to ignite. Coupled w/ the knowledge that a properly
functioning dryer would not start a blanket on fire, concludes
that the dryer was defective.
The
fire occurred w/i two weeks of leaving the Df’s control. One
of the thermostats became inoperative some time prior to the fire
b/c of excessive wear. The wrong type of thermostats were
in the dryer at the time of the sale. This establishes the
existence of a defect while the product was in the hands of Df.
Plaintiff’s
Argument: Pl did not tamper or misuse the dryer, the dryer had a
guarantee issued by the Df who sold and rebuilt the dryer which
caused an injury because of a defect.
Defendant’s
Argument: There is no evidence to support that the defect was
created by the Df and the pl assumed the risk by continuing to
use the machine after it overheated once.
|
