Lexplug logoLexplug

Bell Sports, Inc. v. Yarusso

Supreme Court of Delaware
42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 714, 2000 Del. LEXIS 370, 759 A.2d 582 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Affirmations of fact in a product's owner's manual regarding its primary function and performance capabilities create an express warranty. A general disclaimer of warranties is ineffective against such specific affirmations, and a claim for breach of this warranty is conceptually distinct from a negligence claim.


Facts:

  • Brian J. Yarusso purchased a Bell Moto 5 helmet, testifying he relied on assertions in the owner's manual.
  • The manual stated, '(T)he primary function of a helmet is to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head' and it 'is designed to absorb the force of a blow.'
  • The manual also contained disclaimers, stating 'NO HELMET CAN PROTECT THE WEARER AGAINST ALL FORESEEABLE IMPACTS,' and a five-year limited warranty disclaiming all other warranties.
  • While riding his off-road motorcycle, Yarusso was catapulted over the handlebars and landed on his head.
  • Yarusso wore the Bell helmet and a full complement of other safety equipment during the accident.
  • The fall caused a burst fracture of Yarusso's C5 vertebral body, rendering him a quadriplegic.
  • The helmet successfully protected Yarusso from any head or brain injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • Brian Yarusso sued Bell Sports, Inc. in the Superior Court of Delaware (trial court) for negligence and breach of express and implied warranties.
  • At the close of evidence, the trial court granted judgment as a matter of law for Bell on Yarusso's claim for breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose, but allowed the other claims to go to the jury.
  • The jury returned a verdict finding that Bell was not negligent, but had breached an express or implied warranty, which proximately caused Yarusso's enhanced injuries.
  • The jury awarded Yarusso $1,812,000 in damages.
  • Bell filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing the verdict was inconsistent; the Superior Court denied the motions.
  • Bell Sports, Inc., as appellant, appealed the denial of its post-trial motions to the Supreme Court of Delaware.

Locked

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 manufacturer's statement in an owner's manual that a helmet's 'primary function is to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head' create an express warranty that is breached if the user suffers a paralyzing neck injury, even when the jury finds the manufacturer was not negligent in the helmet's design?


Opinions:

Majority - Walsh, Justice

Yes. A manufacturer's affirmations of fact in an owner's manual can create an express warranty that is separate from negligence claims and cannot be negated by general disclaimers. Under Delaware's Uniform Commercial Code (§ 2-313), an express warranty is created by any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller that becomes part of the basis of the bargain; formal words like 'warrant' or 'guarantee' are not required. The statements in Bell's manual about the helmet's primary function to reduce harmful effects of a blow constituted such affirmations of fact, creating an express warranty. Pursuant to § 2-316(1), a disclaimer is ineffective if it is inconsistent with the language of an express warranty, meaning Bell could not disclaim the specific promises it made. Furthermore, a breach of warranty claim is conceptually distinct from a negligence claim. A warranty claim evaluates the product's performance against the seller's promises, whereas a negligence claim focuses on the manufacturer's conduct and adherence to a standard of care. Therefore, it is not inconsistent for a jury to find that a manufacturer was not negligent in its design process but did breach an express warranty because the product failed to conform to the specific affirmations made about it.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle that manufacturers are bound by the specific factual claims made in product manuals and marketing materials, which can create express warranties under the UCC. It highlights that general disclaimers may be legally ineffective when they contradict these specific affirmations of fact. The case also reinforces the critical distinction between tort-based negligence claims (focused on conduct) and contract-based warranty claims (focused on the product's promised performance), allowing for verdicts that find a breach of warranty even in the absence of negligence. This puts a significant burden on manufacturers to ensure their product descriptions are accurate and consistent, as they cannot rely on broad disclaimers to shield them from liability for specific performance promises.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Bell Sports, Inc. v. Yarusso (2000) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Bell Sports, Inc. v. Yarusso