Lexplug logoLexplug

Cook v. Downing

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
891 P.2d 611 (1994)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The provision of dentures by a dentist to a patient is a professional service, not a sale of goods. Therefore, legal claims arising from allegedly defective dentures must be brought under a theory of professional negligence (malpractice), not under the Uniform Commercial Code's (UCC) implied warranties.


Facts:

  • A patient, Appellee, received dentures from her licensed dentist, Appellant.
  • The dentist's practice involved less than 50% fitting and making dentures.
  • After receiving the dentures, the Appellee experienced mouth trouble, which she attributed to them being ill-fitting.
  • The Appellant testified that the patient's condition was generalized, which is inconsistent with localized sore spots caused by ill-fitting dentures.
  • The Appellant referred the Appellee to oral surgeons for further evaluation.
  • The consulting dental specialists' evidence indicated the condition was likely due to candidas, an autoimmune reaction, or an allergy, and consistently ruled out ill-fitting dentures as the cause.

Procedural Posture:

  • The patient (Appellee) sued her dentist (Appellant) in small claims court.
  • The trial court entered judgment in favor of the patient.
  • The trial court's judgment was explicitly based on a finding of a breach of the 'Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose' under the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code.
  • The dentist (Appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.

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 the Uniform Commercial Code's implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose apply to a dentist who provides dentures to a patient?


Opinions:

Majority - Hunter, Judge

No. The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply because a dentist is not a 'merchant' and dentures are not 'goods' within the meaning of the UCC; the transaction is primarily one of professional service, not a sale. The court aligns with the reasoning in Preston v. Thompson, holding that professionals who furnish medical services for a fee are liable only for negligence or intentional misconduct, not for breach of warranty under the UCC. The fact that a dentist may specialize in dentures does not transform them from a professional into a merchant. The Appellee's proper cause of action sounds in tort (negligence), not in contract or warranty under the UCC. As there was no evidence to support a negligence claim, the trial court's judgment was incorrect.


Dissenting - Carl B. Jones, Judge

Yes, under certain circumstances. The transaction is a hybrid of goods and services, and the UCC should apply if the sale of goods is the predominant element. The statutory definitions of 'merchant' and 'goods' are broad enough to include dentists and dentures. The court should apply a 'predominant purpose test' to determine if the transaction was primarily a sale or a service. In this case, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that the transaction was principally a sale of goods and that the dentures were not fit for their ordinary purpose, which would support a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The majority's holding ignores that the lines between healthcare professionals and other businesses are blurring.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a clear distinction in Oklahoma law between the sale of goods and the provision of professional medical services, even when a tangible product is provided. It shields healthcare professionals from the strict liability standards of the UCC's implied warranties, requiring plaintiffs to instead meet the higher burden of proof for negligence (malpractice). This ruling reinforces the traditional view of medicine as a service-based profession and rejects the application of commercial sales law to the patient-provider relationship. The dissent's proposed 'predominant purpose test' represents an alternative approach used in other jurisdictions to handle such hybrid transactions, suggesting a potential area for future legal challenges or evolution.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Cook v. Downing (1994) 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 Cook v. Downing