to satisfy that implied warranty. 58
In
Myers, the plaintiff was injured when his foot slipped under a rotary power mower as he fell while cutting grass on a slope. The Court of Appeals held that there was an “implied warranty that the mower was fit to cut grass safely when used in a nor- mal manner, not that [plaintiff] would not be injured when he fell on the slope, and his foot slipped under the mower.”59 In Myers, the Court quoted extensively from a then current treatise: For example, one buying an auto- mobile impliedly makes known the particular purpose for which the goods are intended–transportation. If the au- tomobile will not run, both the warranties of fitness for the purpose and merchantability are breached, for such a defective car is not of fair qual-
58
Ford Motor, 365 Md. at 346 n.24, 779 A.2d at 377 n.24.
59Myers, 253 Md. at 296, 252 A.2d at 864.
ity, nor is it fit for the purpose as im- pliedly made known to the seller.60 In Thomas, an action seeking only eco- nomic damages for replacement of a defective vehicle, the Court of Special Appeals determined that a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability could also be grounds for claiming breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particu- lar purpose, relying on the above-quoted commentary in Myers. 61 Notwithstanding its stated reluctance to address the issue, the Court of Appeals gave every indication in Ford Motor of a willingness to reconsider whether a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fit- ness for a particular purpose can be sustained when an allegedly defective au- tomobile is being used for the purpose of
60
Id. at 295-96, 252 A.2d at 864 (quoting Hawkland, TRANSACTIONAL GUIDE TO THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (1964), § 1.19020702).
6148 Md. App. at 624-25, 429 A.2d 277.
transportation or whenever a product’s particular use is arguably the same as its ordinary use. In Ford Motor, the Court could have declined to reach the question whether the chassis cab was being used for a particular purpose, and held only that Ford did not have the requisite knowledge of that purpose, assuming it were a particular one. The Court never- theless went on to conclude the warranty was inapplicable because Ford’s chassis cab was being used for one of its ordinary pur- poses, rather than a particular purpose at all.62
In addition, the Court gratuitously
remarked that Myers’ conclusion “cited neither case law nor § 2-315, Comment 2[.]”63
Plaintiff ’s counsel can certainly assume that defendants will raise this is- sue both in actions seeking economic damages and damages for personal injury.
62Ford Motor, 365 Md. at 350, 779 A.2d at 379. 63Id. at 349, 779 A.2d at 378 n. 24.
Winter 2003
Trial Reporter
9
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