Shaffer v. Victoria Station, Inc.
91 Wash. 2d 295, 588 P.2d 233, 25 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 427 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code and the doctrine of strict products liability apply to the container in which a food or drink is served, as the container is an integral part of the product being sold.
Facts:
- On March 26, 1974, plaintiff Shaffer was a customer at the Victoria Station restaurant.
- Shaffer ordered a glass of wine from the restaurant.
- The restaurant served the wine to Shaffer in a glass.
- As Shaffer took his first or second sip of the wine, the glass broke in his hand.
- The breaking glass caused Shaffer to suffer permanent injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Shaffer filed a lawsuit against defendant Victoria Station, Inc. in the trial court, alleging negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability.
- Before trial, Shaffer's attorney took a voluntary nonsuit on the negligence claim.
- The trial court ruled that the case could only proceed on a negligence theory and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining warranty and strict liability claims.
- Shaffer, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, siding with appellee Victoria Station, Inc.
- Shaffer, as appellant, then sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington.
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 restaurant's serving of a drink in a defective container that injures a customer give rise to claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and strict products liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Dolliver, J.
Yes. A restaurant's serving of a drink in a defective container that injures a customer gives rise to claims for both breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and strict products liability. For the warranty claim, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) states that 'the serving for value of food or drink... is a sale' and requires that goods be 'adequately contained.' The wine could not be served or consumed without its container, the glass, so the 'drink sold' includes both the wine and the container, which must be fit for their ordinary purpose. For the strict liability claim, the court adopts the reasoning of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment h, which states that there is no logical reason to distinguish between the product itself and its container, as they are purchased by the consumer as an 'integrated whole.' Therefore, if the container is dangerous, the product is considered sold in a defective condition.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that product liability claims are not limited to the consumable item itself but extend to its necessary packaging or container. It prevents sellers from circumventing liability by arguing that the container was not technically 'sold.' The ruling solidifies the 'integrated whole' concept, ensuring that consumers are protected from defects in any component of a product unit as it is presented for sale. This broadens protection for consumers and increases the scope of responsibility for retailers and restaurateurs.
Unlock the full brief for Shaffer v. Victoria Station, Inc.