This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A two-stage light-gas gun exploded at the Albuquerque facility of the Defendant, causing significant property damage but no injuries. The gun, used for material impact studies, failed due to a defect in the pump tube, which was manufactured by the Third-Party Defendants. The Plaintiffs sought recovery under theories of strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty (paras 1-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Third-Party Defendants, dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (paras 7, 46).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Titan, Allendale, and Hartford): Argued that the pump tube was defective due to improper heat treatment, resulting in the presence of proeutectoid ferrite, and sought recovery under strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties (paras 4, 9-12, 34-42).
- Appellees (American Hollow Boring Company and Bay City Forge Company): Contended that the steel was manufactured according to specifications, denied liability under strict products liability and negligence, and argued that implied warranties were either disclaimed or inapplicable (paras 10, 20-22, 43-44).
Legal Issues
- Whether strict products liability applies to the damage caused by the defective pump tube, including damage to the light-gas gun and other property (paras 13-27).
- Whether the Defendants were negligent in manufacturing or testing the pump tube (paras 28-33).
- Whether the Defendants breached express or implied warranties, including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose (paras 34-45).
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the claims for strict products liability and negligence by Titan and Allendale, as well as Hartford's negligence claim against American, and the claims for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (para 46).
- The Court reversed and remanded the claims for Hartford's strict products liability and negligence against Bay City, as well as the claims for breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability against American and Bay City (para 46).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Pickard and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Strict Products Liability: The Court held that strict products liability does not apply to damage to the defective product itself or to other property of Titan, as the transaction was a commercial one governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). However, Hartford's claim for damage to Broadway's building was allowed to proceed, as Broadway was not a party to the manufacturing or purchase of the gun (paras 13-27).
Negligence: The Court affirmed the dismissal of negligence claims related to Titan's property, as such claims are barred in commercial transactions under the UCC. Hartford's negligence claim against American was dismissed due to lack of evidence, but the claim against Bay City was allowed to proceed based on expert testimony regarding improper heat treatment (paras 28-33).
Express Warranty: The Court found sufficient evidence to support a claim that American breached its express warranty by failing to deliver a product conforming to specifications, as implied by the purchase order (paras 34-36).
Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose: The Court dismissed this claim against both Defendants, finding no evidence that Bay City knew the purpose of the steel or that Titan relied on American's expertise in selecting specifications (paras 37-39).
Implied Warranty of Merchantability: The Court found that the presence of proeutectoid ferrite in the steel created a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the product was merchantable. The Court rejected Bay City's argument that the warranty was disclaimed, as the disclaimer was not in the record (paras 40-45).