Crews v. W. A. Brown & Son, Inc.
416 S.E.2d 924, 106 N.C. App. 324 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Carolina's Uniform Commercial Code, a seller's implied and express warranties for a product extend only to the buyer's family, household, and guests in the home, and do not extend to members of an organizational buyer, such as a church. Additionally, a seller who assembles and installs a product is not liable for negligence for failing to discover a latent defect if they exercise reasonable care in the assembly and inspection process.
Facts:
- In mid-1984, Foodcraft Equipment Company (Foodcraft) sold a walk-in freezer to Calvary Baptist Church (Church).
- Foodcraft purchased the freezer parts, including a pre-assembled door with a safety latch, from the manufacturer, W. A. Brown & Son, Inc.
- Foodcraft employees assembled the freezer at the church, installed a 'heated pressure release port,' and tested the internal door latch, concluding that it worked properly.
- On July 2, 1985, Vickie Ann Buchanan Crews (Crews), a 13-year-old church volunteer, entered the freezer while working at the church.
- The freezer door closed behind her, and she became trapped when the internal release mechanism, allegedly blocked by frost, failed to open the door.
- Crews was discovered after being trapped for over an hour and suffered severe frostbite, which ultimately required the amputation of nine and a half of her toes.
Procedural Posture:
- Vickie Ann Buchanan Crews and her mother filed a complaint in a state trial court against Foodcraft Equipment Company (Foodcraft), W. A. Brown & Son, Inc. (Brown), and Calvary Baptist Church (Church).
- The plaintiffs' claims against Foodcraft alleged negligence and breach of express and implied warranties.
- All three defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Foodcraft's motion for summary judgment but denied the motions filed by Brown and Church.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Foodcraft (appellee) to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 seller's product warranty extend to a member of a purchasing organization, such as a church, who is injured by the product on the organization's property, under a statute that limits such extensions to the buyer's family, household, or guests in the home?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Greene
No. A seller's warranties do not extend to a member of a purchasing organization like a church under N.C.G.S. § 25-2-318 because such an organization does not constitute a 'family,' 'household,' or 'home.' The court first analyzed the negligence claim, holding that while Foodcraft, as a seller-installer, had a duty of reasonable care, it fulfilled this duty by assembling the unit and testing the latch, which appeared to be working properly. It was not required to discover a latent defect. Turning to the warranty claims, the court held that privity of contract is required to sue a seller for breach of warranty. The legislature created a narrow exception in N.C.G.S. § 25-2-318 for natural persons in the buyer's 'family or household' or 'guests in his home.' Construing these terms by their ordinary meaning, a church is not a 'home,' and it does not have a 'family' or 'household.' Therefore, Crews does not fall within the statutory exception, and her warranty claims against the seller, Foodcraft, are barred by the lack of privity.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes North Carolina's version of UCC § 2-318, reinforcing the privity requirement for breach of warranty claims against sellers. The court's refusal to extend the definitions of 'family,' 'household,' or 'home' to include organizational members clarifies that the statutory exceptions are narrow and literal. This precedent forces similarly situated plaintiffs to pursue claims against the manufacturer, where privity rules are less strict, or to meet the higher burden of proving negligence against the seller-installer. The case draws a clear line between the liability of manufacturers and sellers, protecting sellers who perform reasonable inspections from liability for undiscoverable latent defects.
Unlock the full brief for Crews v. W. A. Brown & Son, Inc.