Chandler v. U-Line Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 September 1988
• Docket Number: No. 8726SC922,U-LINE,8726SC922
• Citation: 91 N.C.App. 315,371 S.E.2d 717
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,964 William James CHANDLER and Myra R. Chandler v.CORPORATION v. EATON CORPORATION.

Page 717

371 S.E.2d 717

91 N.C.App. 315, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,964

William James CHANDLER and Myra R. Chandler v. U-LINE CORPORATION v. EATON CORPORATION.

No. 8726SC922.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 20, 1988.

W. James Chandler and Brian deBrun, Charlotte, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Jones, Hewson & Woolard by Harry C. Hewson and Hunter M. Jones, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant U-Line Corp.

Petree Stockton & Robinson by J. Neil Robinson, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant Eaton Corp.

GREENE, Judge.

This is an action in which plaintiffs sue defendant U-Line Corporation (hereinafter "U-Line") for damages which plaintiffs allege were caused by a leaking ice maker in a refrigerator manufactured by U-Line. The leak occurred when a plastic portion of a valve cracked while plaintiffs were away from their home on vacation and caused extensive damage to the home.

Plaintiffs brought causes of action sounding in strict liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. Defendant U-Line denied liability in its answer and filed a third-party complaint alleging any damage for which it was found liable was caused by a defective valve manufactured by Eaton Corporation (hereinafter "Eaton").

Eaton answered and denied liability. At trial, plaintiffs sought to show that an over-tightening of a brass nozzle connected to the valve caused stress which resulted in the fracture. U-Line and Eaton both sought to show the leak was caused by water freezing in the valve. They alleged the freezing was due to plaintiffs failing to properly heat the area of their home where the refrigerator was located. At the close of plaintiffs' and U-Line's evidence, Eaton moved for a directed verdict against U-Line on the breach of warranty issue. The trial judge denied this motion.

At the close of all the evidence, the jury retired with the following five issues:

1. Did Defendant U-Line Corporation expressly warrant to the Plaintiffs William James Chandler and Myra R. Chandler that the icemaker (sic) was fit for the ordinary purposes for which such icemaker (sic) was intended?

2. Did Defendant U-Line Corporation impliedly warrant to the Plaintiffs William James Chandler and Myra R. Chandler that the icemaker (sic) was fit for the ordinary purposes for which such icemaker (sic) was intended?

3. Was the warranty breached by Defendant U-Line Corporation?

4. Did Third-Party Defendant Eaton Corporation impliedly warrant to Defendant U-Line Corporation that the valve was fit for the ordinary purposes for which such valve was intended?

5. Was the warranty breached by Third-Party Eaton Corporation?

After the jury finished deliberating, it returned to the courtroom and handed its verdict to the clerk. The verdict sheet indicated the jury answered "Yes" to each of the five issues. The jury was then generally polled as follows:

[CLERK]: Will the members of the jury please stand? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have answered the issues as follows: Number one, "Yes"; Number Two, "Yes"; Number Three, "Yes"; Number Four, "Yes"; and Number Five, "Yes". Was this your verdict, so say all of you?

"Yes".

The jury was then dismissed and judgment was entered for the stipulated amount of $15,596.57 in favor of plaintiffs and U-Line.

On 30 January 1987, Eaton's counsel, Neil Robinson, telephoned one of the members of the jury, James Freeman, to obtain a general critique of Robinson's presentation of Eaton's case. During the conversation, and on his own volition, Freeman informed Robinson that the jury foreman, Howard Pugh, had made a mistake in writing down the answer to Issue Five on the verdict sheet. Issue Five concerned whether Eaton had breached the warranty to U-Line. Freeman told Robinson that the jury had voted "No" on this issue but Pugh had inadvertently written down "Yes". Freeman indicated he brought this mistake to Pugh's attention after the trial judge had excused the jury but Pugh indicated that because the jury had been dismissed, he did not think there was anything that could be done.

Robinson then telephoned U-Line's counsel and told him that he was going to contact Pugh about the alleged mistake. Robinson telephoned Pugh and told Pugh what Freeman had related. Pugh indicated that he had made an error but did not realize it until after the trial judge had dismissed the jury and it was called to his attention by several jurors in the hallway outside the courtroom. He also indicated that he did not tell the trial judge of the mistake because he thought there was nothing that could be done about it at that stage.

On 2 February 1987, Eaton made a motion pursuant to N.C.G.S. Sec. 1A-1, Rules 59 and 60 asking the court to reform the answer to Issue Five to reflect the jury's actual verdict or, in the alternative, to grant a new trial on that issue. Attached to the motion were affidavits from Freeman and Pugh relating the information which they had previously given to Robinson. At a hearing on 12 February 1987, Freeman and Pugh testified and reiterated the matters contained in their affidavits. U-Line objected to the court's consideration of the affidavits and testimony.

The trial judge sustained U-Line's objections to the evidence of the jurors pursuant to N.C.G.S. Sec. 8C-1, Rule 606(b) (1983) and denied Eaton's motions. Eaton appeals to this court arguing the trial judge should have granted its motion for a directed verdict on the warranty issue, or alternatively, should have considered the jurors' testimony and reformed the verdict or granted a new trial.

_____

This case presents the following issues: I) whether the trial judge erred in denying Eaton's motion for a directed verdict concerning the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and II) whether the trial judge erred in excluding the jurors' evidence of a mistake in recording the verdict.

I

In determining whether evidence is sufficient to survive a motion for directed verdict, the trial court must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising from the evidence. Murray v. Murray, 296 N.C. 405, 250 S.E.2d 276 (1979). However, evidence which only raises a possibility or conjecture of fact is not sufficient to withstand a motion for a directed verdict. Ingold v. Carolina Power and Light Co., 11 N.C.App. 253, 181 S.E.2d 173 (1971).

In order to survive a motion for directed verdict in an action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under N.C.G.S. Sec. 25-2-314, the purchaser must present sufficient evidence to show [F]irst that the goods bought and sold were subject to an implied warranty of merchantability; second, that the goods did not comply with the warranty in that the goods were defective at the time of sale; third, that the injury was due to the defective nature of the goods; and fourth, that damages were suffered as a result. ... The burden is upon the purchaser to establish a breach by the seller of the warranty of merchantability by showing that a defect existed at the time of the sale.

Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 319 N.C. 298, 301, 354 S.E.2d 495, 497 (1987) (citations omitted) (quoting Cockerham v. Ward, 44 N.C.App. 615, 624-25, 262 S.E.2d 651, 658, disc. rev. denied, 300 N.C. 195, 269 S.E.2d 622 (1980)). Eaton does not argue the valve was not subject to the implied warranty of merchantability but maintains there was no evidence that a defect in the valve caused the damage and even if there was a defect U-Line failed to show the defect existed at the time of the valve's sale from Eaton to U-Line.

A

The evidence at trial tended to show that Eaton designed and manufactured the plastic valve. This valve allowed water into the ice maker once a tray of ice had been made and deposited. A line providing water to the ice maker was connected to the valve by means of a brass nozzle. This connection took place at U-Line's plant. Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Norman Cope, gave inconsistent answers concerning his opinion of whether a defect in the Eaton valve caused the leak. Initially, Cope testified the over-tightening of the brass nozzle to plastic threads located on the valve caused stress which weakened the valve and eventually led to breakage along the threads. Cope also stated that the type of break in the valve indicated that leakage might not occur immediately upon connection to a water source.

However, Cope later testified upon viewing the valve on the stand that he noticed for the first time that only two threads on the valve were mating with the nozzle and that this was insufficient to give a secure fitting. He went on to testify that the threads on the plastic valve were not properly designed for the brass nozzle. On cross-examination by Eaton, in response to a question about whether the design of the valve caused the leakage, Cope testified "Not that I have been able to see."

Nevertheless, immediately thereafter, when cross-examined by U-Line, Cope testified as follows:

Q. [U-Line] In other words, the fact that this plastic part was designed, if it was, for the hose connector with only two threads engaging would, in your opinion, add to the stress and contribute to the failure that you found?

A. [Cope] That would be the theoretical outlook on that.

Q. Well that, you are the expert. That's your testimony, isn't it?

A. Yes.

While Cope's testimony is certainly subject to differing inferences, it is well settled that conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the non-movant in a motion for a directed verdict. Arnold v. Sharpe, 296 N.C. 533, 251 S.E.2d 452 (1979). Furthermore, evidence in favor of the non-movant must be taken as true, Snow v. Duke Power Co., 297 N.C. 591, 256 S.E.2d 227 (1979), and credibility of testimony is for the jury. Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E.2d 297 (1971). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to U-Line, we hold it was sufficient to show that...