Springfield v. Williams Plumbing Supply Co., 18608

• Decision Date: 20 February 1967
• Docket Number: No. 18608,18608
• Citation: 153 S.E.2d 184,249 S.C. 130
• Parties: Melvin E. SPRINGFIELD and Shirley C. Springfield, Respondents, v. WILLIAMS PLUMBING SUPPLY CO., Inc., Row Con Company and Meaders Co., Inc., ofwhich Williams Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., and Row Con Company are Appellants.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 184

153 S.E.2d 184

249 S.C. 130

Melvin E. SPRINGFIELD and Shirley C. Springfield, Respondents, v. WILLIAMS PLUMBING SUPPLY CO., Inc., Row Con Company and Meaders Co., Inc., ofwhich Williams Plumbing

Supply Co., Inc., and Row Con Company

are Appellants.

No. 18608.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 20, 1967.

Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, for appellants.

Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for respondents.

BUSSEY, Justice.

In this action the plaintiffs Springfield, who are husband and wife, seek to recover damages for both personal injuries and property damage sustained as the result of the explosion of an electric hot water heater installed in their jointly owned home. It is alleged that said heater was manufactured by the appellant Row Con Company, hereinafter referred to simply as Row Con, who sold the same to the appellant Williams Plumbing Supply Company, hereinafter referred to simply as Williams, who, in turn, sold it to Meaders Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to simply as Meaders. Meaders sold the heater to the plaintiffs and installed it in their home.

Named as defendants are Williams, Row Con and Meaders, and the complaint alleges that the defendants, jointly and separately, did impliedly warrant that the water heater was free from any defects in design, workmanship and materials and was suitable for the uses and purposes for which it was purchased; that it was equipped with an adequate thermostat to regulate the water temperature and prevent it from being overheated; that it contained safety devices to prevent the water temperature and pressure from exceeding safe limits so as not to create a hazard and endanger the lives and property of the plaintiffs and their family, and that it would not explode. That the heater was defective in design, workmanship and/or materials and unsuitable for the uses and purposes for which it was purchased and that the defendants did, jointly and separately, breach the implied warranty, in that the heater was not equipped with the controls and safety devices, free from defects, which would assure the safe performance thereof, causing the said heater to explode and damage plaintiffs in the amount of $25,000.

Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Circuit Court Rules of Practice, Row Con and Williams each moved, their motions being identical, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint did not state, as to each of them, facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that there was no privity of contract existing between them and the plaintiffs, and that a cause of action for breach of implied warranty could not be maintained in the absence of such privity. The appeal is from an order of the trial court overruling said motions.

These motions were, in effect, demurrers, and have been treated as such, as will be seen by reference to the cases cited following Circuit Court Rule 18. For the purpose of considering a demurrer, it is elementary that all well pleaded facts in the complaint are admitted as true. Thus, it is admitted that the water heater was, in fact, defective in the particulars alleged and that the damages sustained by the plaintiffs resulted from such defects, and it is further admitted that the defective heater was manufactured by Row Con and sold by it to Williams who, in turn, sold it to Meaders, who sold the same to plaintiffs and installed it in their home. The contention of appellants that under these admitted facts the instant action may not be maintained against them, in the absence of privity of contract, is predicated on the decision of this court in Odom v. Ford Motor Co., 230 S.C. 320, 95 S.E.2d 601, and the general rule there stated and applied to the facts of that case.

The general rule there stated was 'that privity of contract is required in an action for breach of implied warranty and that there is no such privity between a manufacturer and one who has purchased the manufactured article from a dealer or is otherwise a remote vendee.' The court, however, recognized in applying the rule that there were exceptions thereto, among which was the rule that a manufacturer or seller is liable to a third person in the preparation for sale of an article or product 'inherently dangerous' to human safety, such as firearms, explosives, etc.

The facts of the Odom case were such that we do not consider the decision necessarily controlling in the instant case. The court was not there concerned with a factual situation where serious, substantial personal injury and property damages were admittedly caused by a defective appliance or product. The court was not confronted with the necessity of deciding whether such facts as are admitted here would be governed by the general rule relied on in that case, or would come within any of the well recognized exceptions to such rule. In the Odom case no damage to either person or property was caused by an appliance which was either inherently or imminently dangerous. The plaintiff sought in that case to recover only for alleged losses in his farming operations due to the alleged failure of a tractor to properly perform the farm tasks for which it was purchased.

It is clear, we think, that the question of whether the instant action may be maintained against appellants on the theory of implied warranty, under the facts admitted for the purpose of demurrer, in the absence of privity, is one of novel impression in this jurisdiction. The briefs of counsel and a pursuit of the authorities therein cited show, however, that it is far from a question of novel impression in other jurisdictions, and moreover, that it is a question which has posed many difficulties for many courts. The authorities reflect the travail of many courts in their efforts to do justice and formulate sound rules of products liability law. Some citations which throw light upon the extent and breadth of this travail are 75 A.L.R.2d 39; Prosser on Torts, 3d Ed. 658, Chapter 19; Prosser, The Assault upon the Citadel, 69 Yale Law Journal 1099 (1960); and Prosser, The Fall of the Citadel (strict liability to the consumer), 50 Minn.Law Review, 791 (1966).

A review of authorities would indicate that following the decision of Winterbottom v. Wright, 10 M. & W. 109, 152 Eng.Rep. 402 (1842), many courts for quite a number of years held privity of contract to be a prerequisite to the ultimate purchaser...