Siemen v. Alden
18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 884, 341 N.E.2d 713, 34 Ill. App. 3d 961 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An isolated or occasional seller of a product, who is not in the business of selling that product, is not subject to strict liability for selling a defective product, nor are they considered a 'merchant' who provides an implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a sawmill owner since 1961, decided to purchase a multi-rip saw in 1968 to increase production.
- The saw's manufacturer, Alden, had a six-month delivery delay and suggested plaintiff contact defendant Korleski, another sawmill owner who owned two Alden saws.
- Plaintiff contacted Korleski, who had an older, unused Alden saw he had purchased in 1962.
- The parties met, and Korleski showed plaintiff the older saw, which was partially dismantled and stored in a corner.
- Korleski informed plaintiff that the saw was in operating condition but required plaintiff to supply and install his own blades, motor, belts, and other parts.
- The parties agreed on a purchase price of $2900.
- In 1970, plaintiff was injured when a piece of wood exploded while he was operating the saw he had purchased from Korleski.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendants in a trial court based on theories of strict tort liability, breach of warranties, and negligence.
- Defendant Korleski filed a motion for summary judgment on the strict liability and breach of warranty counts.
- The trial court granted Korleski's motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the intermediate appellate court, proceeding against defendant Korleski (appellee) only.
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 strict products liability or the implied warranty of merchantability apply to a defendant engaged in the sawmill business who makes a one-time, isolated sale of a used piece of sawmill equipment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Thomas J. Moran
No. Strict products liability and the implied warranty of merchantability do not apply to an isolated seller who is not engaged in the business of selling the specific product in question. Under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, strict liability applies only to a 'seller engaged in the business of selling such a product,' explicitly excluding occasional sellers. Here, the defendant's sale of the used saw was an isolated transaction, not part of a business of selling sawmill equipment. Similarly, the UCC's implied warranty of merchantability applies only to a 'merchant with respect to goods of that kind,' which the UCC commentary clarifies does not include a person making an isolated sale. Finally, the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does not apply because the uncontroverted facts show the plaintiff had already decided to purchase an Alden saw before contacting the defendant and did not rely on the defendant's skill or judgment in selecting the product.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between commercial sellers and casual, or isolated, sellers in products liability law. It clarifies that both strict liability under tort law (Restatement § 402A) and the implied warranty of merchantability under the UCC (§ 2-314) are aimed at professional merchants and manufacturers, not at individuals or businesses making a one-off sale of used equipment outside their regular course of business. This precedent protects non-merchants from the heightened liability standards imposed on those who regularly place goods into the stream of commerce. It requires future plaintiffs to prove that a seller is 'in the business' of selling a particular product to succeed on these claims.
