Compton v. M. O'Neil Co.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1955
• Citation: 139 N.E.2d 635,101 Ohio App. 378
• Parties: , 67 A.L.R.2d 613, 1 O.O.2d 315 COMPTON, Appellee, v. The M. O'NEIL CO., Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 378

101 Ohio App. 378

139 N.E.2d 635, 67 A.L.R.2d 613, 1 O.O.2d 315

COMPTON, Appellee, v. The M. O'NEIL CO., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Summit County.

Sept. 28, 1955.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Technical or particular words or forms of expression are not necessary to create an express warranty, and the word 'warrant' or 'warranty' need not be used.

2. A warranty need not be in writing or be made in specific terms. Intention to warrant, on the part of the person making the statement, is not necessary, in view of the definition of an express warranty.

3. Where the statement relied on as an express warranty rests wholly in parol, it is the province of the jury to determine whether the oral statement amounts to an express warranty.

Alvin C. Vinopal, Akron, and Ms. Payer, Bleiweiss & Crow, Cleveland, for appellee.

Wise, Roetzel, Maxon, Kelly & Andress, Akron, for appellant.

HUNSICKER, Judge.

This is an appeal on questions of law.

Mrs. Lena Compton, the appellee herein, on September 10, 1947, purchased from the appellant, The M. O'Neil Company, herein called O'Neil's, a Revere Ware pressure cooker, Mrs. Compton testified that she asked the saleslady, at the time of the purchase, if the pressure cooker was safe, and she said the saleslady replied, 'absolutely, it is safe, because M. O'Neil's stands back of everything they sell.' This testimony is not contradicted in the record. A small pamphlet of instructions on the use and operation of the cooker was delivered with the cooker at the home of Mrs. Compton.

She used the cooker for several years, and on April 26, 1950, while attempting to release the cover of this pressure cooker, it exploded, causing hot liquid and the contents (a pot roast) to splatter onto Mrs. Compton, resulting in severe burns to her face and body.

The construction of the cooker was such as to permit particles of food to come up into the steam escape valve. There was no screen guarding this outlet. The pressure gauge on this cooker (upon inspection by a competent person) was found to register pressure at five pounds per square inch more than the gauge indicated. Thus, when the gauge showed 'zero' or no pressure, there was actually five pounds of pressure per square inch for each square inch of surface on the cooker lid or cover.

This gauge, upon examination, was found not to be in a damaged condition, and such examination showed no deterioration of its mechanical parts.

Interrogatories were submitted to the jury by counsel for O'Neil's, and the jury found, among other things, that this cooker was not safe and harmless on the date it was sold to Mrs. Compton, and that it was not safe and harmless on the day when she received her injuries.

The jury returned a verdict of $7,500 for Mrs. Compton, and from the judgment rendered on such verdict an appeal is brought to this court.

It is not necessary for us to detail the five assignments of error. We do not find any error prejudicial to the appellant, The M. O'Neil Company, unless it be that the trial court, in its charge to the jury, incorrectly held that the statement claimed to have been made by the saleslady of O'Neil's to Mrs. Compton constituted an express warranty as a matter of law. In other words, the only question herein is, Did the language of the saleslady to Mrs. Compton constitute an express warranty as a matter of law, or was it necessary for the trial court to submit to the jury the question as to whether such language amounted to a warranty? It is to this question that we direct our attention.

The petition set out two causes of action; one based upon negligence, and the other based upon a breach of warranty. The trial court submitted to the jury the issue of breach of an express warranty only, and, in doing so, said to the jury, among other things:

'The claim of the plaintiff is to the effect, and this is not disputed, that she purchased a Revere Ware pressure cooker from the M. O'Neil Company. She claims that the M. O'Neil Company made representations and warranties that the cooker was safe and harmless, and that she relied upon those representations and warranties, and but for them she would not have bought the cooker. She says that having made that warranty, that she relied upon the truth that it was safe and harmless and that having relied upon it, she bought the cooker, she used the cooker, and that the cooker was not safe and harmless, and because it was not safe and harmless, the representation and warranty of the O'Neil Company was false, and that because it was not safe and harmless, she was injured, and therefore, because she was injured, was because it was an incorrect warranty and representation on the part of the O'Neil Company, for which I say to you as a matter of law, if they did make an incorrect and untrue warranty, and that the reliance on the warranty was the cause of the injury which the plaintiff sustained, then, in that event, the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict in this case.'

There was no instruction given to the jury as to what constituted a warranty, for the position taken by the trial court was that the words used by the saleslady when Mrs. Compton purchased the pressure cooker (if the jury found that they were made by the saleslady) constituted an express warranty as a matter of law, for which, if the jury found the cooker to be in the same condition as when it was...