Hauter v. Zogarts
534 P.2d 377, 14 Cal. 3d 104, 120 Cal. Rptr. 681 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer's unqualified statement that a product is 'completely safe' constitutes a factual representation and an express warranty, not mere puffing. If the product's design poses a significant danger to its intended user, especially a novice, the manufacturer is strictly liable for resulting injuries under theories of misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and defective design.
Facts:
- Defendants, Rudy C. Zogarts and Miles Kimball Company, manufactured and sold the 'Golfing Gizmo,' a golf training device targeted at unskilled golfers.
- The product's packaging and instruction booklet stated, 'Completely Safe Ball Will Not Hit Player' and urged users to 'drive the ball with full power.'
- In 1966, Louise Hauter purchased a Gizmo for her 13½-year-old son, Fred Hauter, as a Christmas present.
- The Gizmo consisted of a golf ball attached to a cotton cord, which was then tied to an elastic cord stretched between two ground pegs.
- On July 14, 1967, Fred Hauter, who had read the instructions and used the device previously, set it up in an open area and took a normal swing with a seven-iron.
- Fred hit underneath the ball, causing his club to catch the cord on his follow-through.
- This entanglement created a 'bolo' effect, causing the ball to loop over the club and strike Fred in the head.
- Fred suffered serious brain damage and was subsequently diagnosed with epilepsy as a result of the injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued defendants in a California trial court, alleging false representation, breach of express and implied warranties, and strict liability in tort.
- A jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendants on all causes of action.
- Following the verdict, the trial court judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and in the alternative, a motion for a new trial.
- Defendants appealed the trial court's order granting the JNOV directly to the Supreme Court of California.
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 unqualified statement that its product is 'Completely Safe Ball Will Not Hit Player' create liability for false representation, breach of warranty, and strict liability when the product injures an inexperienced user?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes, the manufacturer's unqualified statement creates liability under all three theories. The statement 'Completely Safe Ball Will Not Hit Player' is a misrepresentation of a material fact, not mere puffing, upon which a consumer could justifiably rely. This statement also created an express warranty that the product was safe for its intended use by golfers of all skill levels, which became part of the basis of the bargain under the Uniform Commercial Code. The product also breached the implied warranty of merchantability as it was not fit for its ordinary purpose, especially for its target market of beginners. Finally, the Gizmo was defectively designed as a matter of law because its design posed a significant risk of serious injury to its intended user, a danger not inherent in the game of golf itself.
Concurring - Clark, J.
Yes, on the basis of express warranty alone. The record clearly establishes a breach of express warranty as a matter of law, which is sufficient to affirm the judgment. The majority's additional discussion on other legal theories is unnecessary and unpersuasive.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of permissible 'puffing' in product advertising, holding that broad, unqualified safety claims will be treated as factual representations and express warranties. It reinforces that a product must be safe for its intended user base, including foreseeable misuse by novices if the product is marketed to them. The decision solidifies that a product's design can be deemed defective if it creates a danger not inherent in the activity for which it is used, strengthening consumer protection under strict liability, warranty, and misrepresentation theories.
