Agurto v. Guhr
381 N.J. Super. 519, 887 A.2d 159 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether an individual qualifies as a 'product seller' under the New Jersey Product Liability Act is a question of law for the court, not a jury. A person may be deemed a product seller if selling the product is part of the 'purpose' of their business, even if it is not their primary activity and is not to be confused with a merely 'casual' or 'occasional' sale.
Facts:
- Valer Guhr worked as an independent contractor electrician, providing installation and maintenance services on industrial machinery for companies like Baker Adhesive Co.
- In 1992, Guhr acquired a glue mixing machine from a company, Malcom-Nickol, as payment for work he had performed.
- Guhr stored the machine in his warehouse for approximately five years.
- In 1997, Guhr sold the glue mixing machine to his client, Baker Adhesive Co.
- At his deposition, Guhr admitted to selling at least three other machines to other companies since 2000.
- The president of Baker Adhesive Co., Steven Stewart, provided conflicting deposition testimony, stating at one point that Baker 'probably' purchased all of its mixing machines from Guhr.
- On October 30, 2000, Jose Agurto, an employee at Baker Adhesive Co., was seriously injured when his arm was pulled into the glue mixing machine that Guhr had sold to the company.
- The original manufacturer of the machine, Special Machinery Corp., was defunct at the time of the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Agurto and his wife filed a lawsuit against Valer Guhr in a New Jersey trial court, alleging claims under the Product Liability Act.
- After discovery, Guhr moved for summary judgment, arguing he was not a 'product seller' under the Act.
- The trial court judge granted Guhr's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
- Agurto, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the summary judgment dismissal to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who primarily provides maintenance and repair services, but also sells used machinery, qualify as a 'product seller' subject to strict liability under the New Jersey Product Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-8, when there are disputed facts regarding the nature and frequency of those sales?
Opinions:
Majority - S.L. Reisner, J.A.D.
Yes, a person who provides services but also sells used machinery may qualify as a 'product seller' under the New Jersey Product Liability Act, even if sales are not the primary part of their business, where disputed material facts prevent a court from concluding as a matter of law that the sales were merely 'occasional.' The court reasoned that the trial judge erred by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, Guhr, contrary to the summary judgment standard. Material factual disputes existed, particularly stemming from the contradictory deposition testimonies of Guhr and Baker's president regarding the extent of Guhr's sales activities. The court clarified that the 'occasional seller' exception applies only when selling is not part of the 'purpose' of the defendant's business, not merely when sales are infrequent. Critically, the court held that determining a defendant's status as a 'product seller' is a question of duty, which is a matter of law for the court to decide. Because facts underlying this legal determination were in dispute, the proper procedure is to remand for a preliminary bench trial on the limited issue of Guhr's 'seller' status.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural and substantive framework for determining 'product seller' status under the New Jersey Product Liability Act. It establishes that the 'casual seller' exception is narrowly construed, focusing on the purpose of the business rather than just the frequency of sales. The case's primary significance lies in its endorsement of a preliminary bench trial (per R. 4:46-3(b)) to resolve factual disputes underlying this threshold legal question of duty. This approach promotes judicial efficiency by separating the legal determination of 'seller' status from the core product liability questions of defect and causation, which remain for the jury, and prevents premature dismissal of cases where a defendant's business activities are ambiguous.
