59 Cal.2d 57, 26976, Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.

Docket Nº:26976
Citation:59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897
Opinion Judge:[10] Peek
Party Name:Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
Attorney:[7] Galvin R. Keene for Defendant and Appellant. [8] Arthur V. Jones for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Case Date:January 24, 1963
Court:Supreme Court of California

Page 57

59 Cal.2d 57

27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897

William B. GREENMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant,


YUBA POWER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Appellant;

The Hayseed, Defendant and Respondent.

L. A. 26976.

Supreme Court of California

Jan. 24, 1963.

In Bank

Page 58

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 59

Reed, Brockway & Ruffin and William F. Reed, San Diego, for plaintiff and appellant.

Holt, Macomber, Graham & Baugh and William H. Macomber, San Diego, for defendant and appellant.

Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

No appearance for defendant and respondent.

TRAYNOR, Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action for damages against the retailer and the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer. He decided he wanted a Shopsmith for his home workshop, and his wife bought and gave him one for Christmas in 1955. In 1957 he bought the necessary attachments to use the Shopsmith as a lathe for turning a large piece of wood he wished to make into a chalice. After he had worked on the piece of wood several times without difficulty, it suddenly flew out of the machine and struck him on the forehead, inflicting serious injuries. About ten and a half months later, he gave the retailer and the manufacturer written notice of claimed breaches of warranties and filed a complaint against them alleging such breaches and negligence.

After a trial before a jury, the court ruled that there was no evidence that the retailer was negligent or had breached any express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for the breach of any implied warranty. Accordingly, it submitted to the jury only the cause of action alleging breach of implied warranties against the retailer and the causes of action alleging negligence and breach of express warranties against the manufacturer. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer against plaintiff and for plaintiff against the manufacturer in the amount of $65,000. The trial court denied the manufacturer's motion for a new trial and

Page 60

entered judgment on the verdict. The manufacturer and plaintiff appeal. Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the part of the judgment in favor of the retailer, however, only in the event that the part of the judgment against the manufacturer is reversed.

Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that his injuries were caused by defective design and construction of the Shopsmith. His expert witnesses testified that inadequate set screws were used to hold parts of the machine together so that normal vibration caused the tailstock of the lathe to move away from the piece of wood being turned permitting it to fly out of the lathe. They also testified that there were other more positive ways of fastening the parts of the machine together, the use of which would have prevented the accident. The jury could therefore reasonably have concluded that the manufacturer negligently constructed the Shopsmith. The jury could also reasonably have concluded that statements in the manufacturer's brochure were untrue, that they constituted express warranties, 1 and that plaintiff's injuries were caused by their breach.

The manufacturer contends, however, that plaintiff did not give it notice of breach of warranty within a reasonable time and that therefore his cause of action for breach of warranty is barred by section 1769 of the Civil Code. Since it cannot be determined whether the verdict against it was based on the negligence or warranty cause of action or both, the manufacturer concludes that the error in presenting the warranty cause of action to the jury was prejudicial.

Section 1769 of the Civil Code provides: 'In the absence of express or implied agreement of the parties, acceptance of the goods by the buyer shall not discharge the seller from liability in damages or other legal remedy for breach of any promise or warranty in the contract to sell or the sale. But, if, after acceptance of the goods, the buyer fails to give notice to the seller of the breach of any promise or warranty within a reasonable time after the buyer knows, or ought to know of such breach, the seller shall not be liable therefor.'

Like other provisions of the uniform sales act (Civ.Code,

Page 61

§§ 1721-1800), section 1769 deals with the rights of the parties to a contract of sale or a sale. It does not provide that notice must be given of the breach of a warranty that arises independently of a contract of sale between the parties. Such warranties are not imposed by the sales act, but are the product of common-law decisions that have recognized them in a variety of situations. (See Gagne v. Bertran, 43 Cal.2d 481, 486-487, and authorities cited; Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co., 54 Cal.2d 339, 348, 5 Cal.Rptr. 863; Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272, 276-283; Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal.2d 682, 695-696; Souza & McCue Constr. Co. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 508, 510-511, 20 Cal.Rptr. 634.) It is true that in many of these situations the court has invoked the sales act definitions of warranties (Civ.Code, §§ 1732, 1735) in defining the defendant's liability, but it has done so, not because the statutes so required, but because they provided appropriate standards for the court to adopt under the circumstances presented. (See Clinkscales v. Carver, 2 Cal.2d 72, 75; Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales, 56 Cal.2d 284, 287, 14 Cal.Rptr. 649.)

The notice...

To continue reading