vehicle was defective, and that the defect existed as of the time of manufacture, and that such proof must rise above mere con- jecture or speculation. The Court concluded in Harrison that a defect could not be inferred under circumstances in which the plaintiffs had been “‘unable to show that what might possibly have hap- pened did probably happen. Reduced to its simplest form, their argument is that because a one-car accident happened without apparent cause, the manufacturer must be to blame. Such a theory is not supported by established principles of common-law negligence or strict liabil- ity or breach of warranty. wishful thinking.’”39
It is simply
ered when inferring a product defect from cir- cumstantial evidence: (1) expert testimony regarding possible causes; (2) the occurrence of the accident a short time after sale; (3) same accidents in similar products; (4) the elimina- tion of other causes of the accident; and (5) whether the type of accident that did not hap- pen without a defect. Id. at 18 n.16 (citing Harrison, 77 Md. App. at 51, 549 A.2d at 390). That proof must rise above mere con- jecture. Id.
39
Id. At 337, 779 A.2d at 372 (quoting Harrison, 77 Md. App. at 54, 549 A.2d at 392).
In Ford Motor, the Court of Appeals
further found that the Court of Special Appeals had “improperly analyzed” the required elements of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.40
In
order to prevail on a claim under Section 2-315, it held, proof of three elements is required: (1) the seller must have reason to know of the buyer’s particular purpose; (2) the seller must have reason to know that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to furnish appropriate goods; and (3) the buyer must rely, in fact, upon the seller’s skill or judgment.41
The par-
ticular purpose, it held, must be distinguishable from the normal use of the goods; it contemplates a use of the prod- uct that is peculiar to the nature of the buyer’s business, while “ordinary purpose” refers to the use customarily made of the goods.42
In addition to the requirement
of a “particular purpose,” the Court held that a party asserting a claim under Sec- tion 2-315 must establish “that the seller had reason to know, at the time of sale,
40Id. at 342, 779 A.2d at 374. 41Id. at 342, 779 A.2d at 374-75.
42
Id. at 343, 779 A.2d at 375 (relying on Offi- cial Comment and Comment 2, Md. Comm. Law Code Ann., § 2-315).
that the purchaser had that particular use of the good in mind and that the pur- chaser was relying on the seller’s expertise to select an appropriate product for that purpose.”43
The Court noted that the
need to establish specific knowledge on the part of the seller was tantamount to a “near requirement of direct dealing, if not actual privity [.]”44
For this proposition,
the Court relied upon Wood Products, Inc. v. CMI Corp.,45
in which the United States
District Court, applying Maryland law, (Continued on page 8)
43Id. at 343, 779 A.2d at 375. 44
Id. The requirement of privity has been statu- torily abolished with respect to the implied warranty of merchantability. See §2-314 (1)(b). See also §2-318, abolishing privity with respect to consumer goods: A seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home or any other ultimate con- sumer or user of the goods or person affected thereby if it is reasonable to expect such per- son may use, consume, or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty. A seller may not exclude or limit the operation of this section.
45651 F. Supp. 641, 649 (D. Md. 1986).
ATLA 2003 Winter Convention
February 1-5 • Maui, Hawaii Hyatt Regency Maui Resort
Register by January 3 and Save $50! ATLA will present two morning tracks of continuing legal education programs allowing attendees to earn approximately 21.5*
MCLE
credits, including 1 ethics credit, in just 5 days. Concurrent tracks on trial skills and hot topics will provide you with up-to-date informa- tion and contacts with lawyers in your own practice areas. The popular Litigation at Sunrise rounds out the CLE program.
* Number of credits may be greater depending on calculation method used by accreditation
agency.ATLA is a state bar of California MCLE approved provider.
For More Information ♦ Visit
www.atla.org
As first-time convention attendees, who are lawyers in practice less than ten years
and 1st time attending paralegals receive an additional 50% off the regular registration fee!
Winter 2003
♦ Use ATLA’s 24-hour, toll-free Fax-on-Demand service at 888-267-0770 and request Document #1300
♦ Phone 800-424-2725 or 202-965-3500, ext. 613 Trial Reporter 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60