Flippo v. Mode O'Day Frock Shops
449 S.W.2d 692 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For claims of breach of implied warranty of merchantability or strict product liability to be successful, the injury must be caused by a defect inherent to the product itself, not by an external object or entity that is temporarily on or within the product but not part of it.
Facts:
- Gladys Flippo visited a Mode O'Day clothing store operated by Rosie Goforth to try on clothes.
- Goforth provided Flippo with two pairs of pants.
- While trying on the second pair of pants in the dressing room, Flippo felt a sudden burning sensation on her thigh.
- Flippo immediately removed the pants, shook them, and a spider fell to the floor.
- An examination of her thigh revealed a reddened area that progressively worsened, leading to a 30-day hospitalization.
- Flippo's physician determined the injury was caused by the bite of a brown recluse spider.
- The pants themselves were not defective in their design or manufacturing.
- After the incident, Flippo purchased, wore, and laundered the same pair of pants.
Procedural Posture:
- Gladys Flippo filed a lawsuit against Mode O’Day Frock Shops and Rosie Goforth in a state trial court.
- Flippo's complaint asserted three grounds for recovery: strict tort liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty.
- At trial, the court refused Flippo's request to instruct the jury on the theories of strict liability and implied warranty.
- The case was submitted to the jury solely on the issue of the defendants' negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, Mode O'Day and Goforth.
- Flippo (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Arkansas Supreme Court, challenging only the trial court's refusal to instruct on implied warranty and strict liability.
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 presence of a venomous spider on an otherwise non-defective pair of pants constitute a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability or give rise to a claim for strict tort liability against the seller?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Carleton Harris
No. The presence of a spider on the pants does not constitute a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability or create strict tort liability. For either theory to apply, the product itself must be defective or unreasonably dangerous. In this case, the slacks were fit for their ordinary purpose, were not defective, and did not cause the physical harm; the injury was caused by the spider, which was not part of the product. The court reasoned that the implied warranty of merchantability under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 85-2-314 applies to the goods themselves. Here, the pants were perfectly fit for use as clothing, and Flippo even purchased them after the incident. The spider was not part of the manufacturing or a component of the product. Similarly, strict tort liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A requires a product to be sold in a 'defective condition unreasonably dangerous.' The slacks were not defective, dangerous, or the cause of the harm. Therefore, the injury was caused by an external agent—the spider—and not the product, precluding recovery under either product liability theory.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of product liability by establishing a crucial distinction between a defect inherent in a product and a harm caused by an external agent merely associated with the product. The ruling prevents the expansion of no-fault liability theories (implied warranty and strict liability) to situations where the product is merely the situs of an injury. It reinforces the principle that the plaintiff must prove the product itself was defective and that the defect caused the harm. Consequently, individuals injured in similar circumstances must rely on a negligence claim, which requires proving the seller breached a duty of care, a significantly higher burden than required for strict liability or warranty claims.
Unlock the full brief for Flippo v. Mode O'Day Frock Shops