Maybank v. S. S. Kresge Co.
266 S.E.2d 409, 46 N.C. App. 687, 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 69 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code's implied warranty of merchantability, a product that malfunctions and causes injury upon its first normal use after being purchased in a sealed container is considered unmerchantable, and a jury may reasonably infer the defect existed at the time of sale.
Facts:
- The plaintiff purchased a package of flashcubes from defendant's K-Mart store.
- The flashcubes were in a sealed package and did not appear defective or abnormal.
- Plaintiff placed the sealed package in her purse, where it remained for approximately nine days.
- Plaintiff used one flashcube from the package without incident.
- Plaintiff then placed a second flashcube from the same package onto her camera.
- When plaintiff attempted to use the second flashcube for the first time, it exploded, injuring her.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant (seller) in a trial court on theories of negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence at trial, the court granted a directed verdict for the defendant on all claims.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's entry of a directed verdict to the intermediate appellate court.
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 plaintiff present sufficient evidence to create a jury question on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability by showing that a flashcube, purchased in a sealed package, exploded upon its first intended use, causing injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Vaughn, Judge
Yes. A plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to reach a jury on a claim for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability under these circumstances. To establish a claim, a plaintiff must show that a merchant sold goods that were not 'merchantable' at the time of sale, which proximately caused an injury. A product, such as a flashcube, that explodes during its ordinary and intended use is not merchantable because it is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. While the plaintiff must prove the defect existed at the time of sale, this can be established by circumstantial evidence; where a product is purchased in its original sealed container and nothing occurs between the purchase and its first use to suggest mishandling, a jury can reasonably infer the product was defective at the time of sale. Therefore, it was an error to grant a directed verdict for the defendant.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard for plaintiffs in products liability cases based on a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. It establishes that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to survive a directed verdict and create a jury question regarding whether a defect existed at the time of sale. This lowers the burden for consumers, who do not need to provide direct evidence or expert testimony on the specific nature of a manufacturing defect if the product was sold in a sealed container and malfunctioned dangerously upon its first normal use. The ruling reinforces that the implied warranty provides consumer protection against unsafe products without requiring proof of the seller's negligence.
