Archibald v. Act III Arabians
1988 Tex. LEXIS 99, 31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 577, 755 S.W.2d 84 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance applies to services that involve the modification of existing tangible goods or property, which includes services such as horse training.
Facts:
- John Archibald placed four Arabian horses with Act III Arabians for training as show horses.
- One of the horses, a mare named Gayle Silva Robyn, proved difficult to train and frequently bucked.
- A trainer from Act III Arabians subjected the mare to a strenuous training session, using a riding crop extensively and causing welts to develop.
- A veterinarian treated the mare for abrasions and swelling, after which her skin sloughed off.
- While the mare's skin condition was improving, she developed founder, a disease causing severe lameness.
- The founder so incapacitated the mare that she ultimately had to be destroyed.
Procedural Posture:
- John Archibald sued Act III Arabians in a Texas trial court, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
- A jury found Act III Arabians was negligent, but that its negligence was not the proximate cause of the mare's death.
- On the DTPA claim, the jury found that Act III Arabians failed to perform in a good and workmanlike manner and this failure was a producing cause of the mare's death.
- The trial court disregarded the jury's DTPA findings and rendered a take-nothing judgment against Archibald, ruling that no implied warranty for such services existed under Texas law.
- Archibald, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Act III Arabians, the appellee.
- Archibald, as petitioner, appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas for review.
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 the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance for services involving the modification of existing tangible goods apply to horse training services?
Opinions:
Majority - Spears, J.
Yes. The implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance applies to horse training services because such services constitute a modification of an existing tangible good. The court extended its prior holding in Melody Home, which established an implied warranty for services involving the repair or modification of existing tangible goods. The court reasoned that a horse is an 'existing tangible good' and that training is a 'modification' because it alters the animal's demeanor, skills, and value by introducing new elements and extinguishing undesirable traits. Therefore, horse training falls within the scope of the warranty.
Dissenting - Wallace, J.
No. The implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance should not be extended to encompass horse training services. The warranties established in prior cases like Humber and Melody Home were limited to residential construction and the repair of tangible goods, and should not be expanded. Existing common law remedies in tort (negligence) and contract were adequate for Archibald. His failure to succeed on his negligence claim does not justify the judicial creation of a new implied warranty.
Dissenting - Gonzalez, J.
No. The implied warranty does not apply because horse training is a professional service that requires the exercise of intellectual skill, judgment, and discretion. Citing Dennis v. Allison, this dissent argues that the nature of professional work is inconsistent with an implied warranty guaranteeing an error-free performance, especially when dealing with a living animal with its own temperament. The majority's decision improperly ignores the professional services exception, creates confusion, and unfairly lowers the plaintiff's burden of proof from 'proximate cause' for negligence to the less stringent 'producing cause' standard under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance in Texas from services involving inanimate objects (like home repairs) to those involving living property. By defining animal training as a 'modification' of a 'tangible good,' the court opened the door for claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for a broader range of services. The holding blurs the line of the professional services exception, suggesting that the warranty may apply even to services requiring professional judgment if they act upon a tangible good. This creates a lower burden of proof ('producing cause') for plaintiffs who might otherwise fail to prove 'proximate cause' in a standard negligence action.
