DeLoach v. Whitney
| Decision Date | 06 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21362,21362 |
| Citation | 273 S.E.2d 768,275 S.C. 543 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Hardy DeLOACH, Respondent, v. Elmer Harry WHITNEY, Jr., d/b/a Whitney's Tire Company, Appellant. |
Levin, Sams & Davis, P. A., Beaufort, for appellant.
Moss & Bailey, Beaufort, for respondent.
This is a strict liability in tort case. Respondent Hardy DeLoach brought suit against appellant Elmer Harry Whitney, Jr. doing business as Whitney's Tire Company for personal injuries he received when the valve stem on the front right tire ruptured and he lost control of his car. The trial court denied appellant's motion for a direct verdict on the issue of strict liability. This was erroneous.
The sole issue submitted to the jury was whether the appellant was liable under strict liability for failing to install a new valve stem or not warning respondent of the deteriorated condition of the one on the wheel. The jury returned a verdict for the appellant. Respondent moved for and was granted a new trial because appellant's closing argument was improper and prejudicial. We reverse.
Appellant first asserts the trial court erred in granting a new trial because he was entitled to a directed verdict as a matter of law, and any prejudice from counsel's closing argument was harmless. We agree.
Respondent won four of Whitney's tires in a raffle. He had two of the tires mounted on his car on March 14, 1978, at Whitney's place of business. On April 4, 1978, he had the other two tires installed by Whitney. During the latter installation a deteriorated valve stem, not a part of the tire, was left on the wheel. On May 20, 1978, the valve stem ruptured and DeLoach was injured when his car left the highway.
The complaint in this case alleged three causes of action; (1) negligence; (2) breach of warranty; and (3) strict liability in tort. DeLoach subsequently withdrew the causes of action based on negligence and warranty and proceeded solely on strict liability in tort.
Whitney moved for a directed verdict on the issue of strict liability because there had been no sale to bring the transaction within § 15-73-10, Code of Laws of S. C. (1976). The trial court denied the motion finding services included within the scope of § 15-73-10, supra. We disagree.
We held § 15-73-10, supra, " imposes liability upon sellers of products 'in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.' " Marchant v. Mitchell Distributing Co., 270 S.C. 29, 35, 240 S.E.2d 511, 513 (1977). We are now asked to expand liability under this section to include the negligent installation of a non-defective product, to wit; the tire. We decline to do so.
In Hoover v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 270 Or. 498, 528 P.2d 76 (1974) the Oregon Supreme Court refused to expand the scope of strict liability to include within its definition of "dangerously defective products" the allegedly negligent installation of a non-defective tire. (Defendant allegedly failed to tighten the lug nuts). The Oregon court held the tire sold was not defective, but rather the installation of the wheel on the hub was defective, therefore, not a proper case for strict liability. We have no difficulty with the Oregon court's holding that strict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Breast Implant Product Liability
...authority from other jurisdictions, dictate that health care providers are not "sellers" under Restatement § 402A. DeLoach v. Whitney, 275 S.C. 543, 273 S.E.2d 768 (1981) provides the analytic starting point for answering the question before us. In DeLoach, the plaintiff had won four of def......
-
Miller v. Solaglas California, Inc.
...tort liability limited to defects in product supplied and does not include non-negligent mistakes in service); DeLoach v. Whitney, 275 S.C. 543, 273 S.E.2d 768 (1981) (strict liability does not include negligent installation of non-defective product); Conger v. Teltech, Inc., 798 P.2d 279 (......
-
Flowers v. Lea Power Partners, LLC
...tort liability was limited to defects in product supplied and does not include non-negligent mistakes in service); DeLoach v. Whitney, 275 S.C. 543, 273 S.E.2d 768 (1981) (ruling that strict liability does not include negligent installation of non-defective product); Conger v. Teltech, Inc.......
-
Samson v. Greenville Hosp. System
...in tort upon the suppliers of defective products. This section applies only to products and not to services. Deloach v. Whitney, 275 S.C. 543, 273 S.E.2d 768 (1981). Neither the plain language of § 15-73-10, nor the Comments to the Restatement indicate whether blood is a product for purpose......