Hanberry v. Hearst Corp.
276 Cal.App.2d 680, 39 A.L.R. 3d 173, 81 Cal. Rptr. 519 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third-party product endorser who, for its own economic gain, makes representations to the public that a product is good or safe, may be liable for negligent misrepresentation if it fails to exercise ordinary care in its examination of the product and a consumer is physically injured after foreseeably relying on the endorsement.
Facts:
- Hearst Corporation publishes Good Housekeeping magazine, which offers advertisers the use of a "Good Housekeeping's Consumers' Guaranty Seal."
- The magazine stated it satisfied itself that products advertised were "good ones" and the seal promised that "If the product or performance is defective, Good Housekeeping guarantees replacement or refund to consumer."
- A pair of shoes, imported by Victor B. Handal & Bros., Inc. and sold by Akron, was advertised with and affixed with the Good Housekeeping seal with Hearst's consent.
- Hanberry, having frequently read the magazine, believed products with the seal were tested and safe, and she relied on the seal's representation when she purchased the shoes.
- On the day of purchase, Hanberry wore the shoes on her vinyl kitchen floor, where she slipped, fell, and sustained severe personal injuries.
- Hanberry alleged the shoes were defectively designed with a low co-efficient of friction, making them dangerously slippery on common floor coverings.
- Hanberry further alleged Hearst made no proper examination of the shoes, or if it did, it was performed negligently.
Procedural Posture:
- Hanberry filed a complaint against Hearst Corporation and others in the trial court.
- Hearst Corporation filed a general demurrer to the causes of action alleged against it.
- The trial court sustained Hearst's demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of Hearst.
- Hanberry, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 product endorser, who for economic gain encourages and induces the public to buy a product, owe a duty of care to a consumer who relies on the endorsement, purchases the product, and is injured because it is defective?
Opinions:
Majority - Unstated (Concurred by Brown, P.J., and Coughlin, J.)
Yes. One who endorses a product for economic gain, for the purpose of inducing the public to buy it, may be liable to a purchaser who, relying on the endorsement, is injured by a defective product. Public policy imposes a duty on a commercial endorser to use ordinary care in the issuance of its seal and certification. By voluntarily involving itself in the marketing process and loaning its reputation to promote a product's sale, an endorser like Hearst places itself in a position where it must exercise ordinary care towards consumers who foreseeably rely on its endorsement. The court found that privity of contract is not necessary to establish such a duty. The court rejected Hearst's arguments that its liability was contractually limited to refund or replacement and that its certification was mere opinion, holding that because Hearst held itself out as having superior knowledge, its representations could be actionable as negligent misrepresentations of fact or opinion. However, the court declined to extend liability under theories of warranty or strict liability, limiting those doctrines to parties directly in the chain of manufacturing and distribution.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded potential liability for defective products beyond the traditional chain of distribution (manufacturer, distributor, retailer) to third-party certifiers and endorsers. It established that an entity that lends its credibility to a product for commercial benefit assumes a tort duty of reasonable care to the consumers it targets. This case serves as a foundational precedent for actions against entities like consumer testing organizations, influencers, and advertisers who endorse products, holding that their economic interest in the endorsement creates a corresponding responsibility for the safety representations they make to the public.
