Stephan v. Sears Roebuck & Co., KING-SEELEY

• Decision Date: 30 April 1970
• Docket Number: KING-SEELEY,No. 5972
• Citation: 110 N.H. 248,266 A.2d 855
• Parties: , 7 UCC Rep.Serv. 1318 Robert STEPHAN v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. Robert STEPHAN v.THERMOS CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 855

266 A.2d 855

110 N.H. 248, 7 UCC Rep.Serv. 1318

Robert STEPHAN v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

Robert STEPHAN v. KING-SEELEY THERMOS CO.

No. 5972.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

April 30, 1970.

Nighswander, Lord & Martin and David J. KillKelley, Laconia and Batchelder & Murphy and John B. Eames, Plymouth, for plaintiff.

Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Pingree & Bigg and William S. Orcutt and Robert H. Hurd, Manchester, for defendants.

GRIMES, Justice.

These are actions for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on July 19, 1965 while using a radial arm power saw which he purchased from the defendant Sears Roebuck and Co. under its brand name Craftsman and which had been manufactured by the defendant King-Seeley Thermos Co. The writ against King-Seeley contains two counts, one based on strict tort liability and one on implied warranty at common law. The writ against Sears contains three counts: one in strict tort liability, one for breach of implied warranty under RSA 382-A:2-314, and one for breach of implied warranty at common law. All counts allege that the saw was 'so defectively designed and manufactured as to be unreasonably dangerous to the user,' in that the saw blade would, when pulled toward the operator, extend over the edge of the table, and also alleged that plaintiff's hand was injured by the saw while he was holding a piece of wood being cut.

The defendant King-Seeley manufactured the saw in Michigan. Plaintiff ordered the saw from Sears' place of business in Georgia and it was delivered to him in his winter home in Florida. He shipped it to his summer home in New Hampshire where the accident occurred.

The Trial Court, Keller, J., transferred five questions asking whether any of the counts stated a cause of action, whether contributory negligence was a defense to any of the counts, and what law governs the trial of this case.

The questions whether the counts based on strict liability in tort state causes of action and whether contributory negligence is a defense to such an action are answered in the affirmative by the recent decision in Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., 110 N.H. --, 260 A.2d 111, decided after this case was argued.

Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., supra, was a case in which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the alleged defect and the question of his contributory negligence related to his conduct in view of that knowledge. The record before us does not reveal what knowledge the plaintiff in this case had of the alleged defect or danger. However we reaffirm the doctrine that failure to discover or foresee dangers which the ordinary person would have discovered or foreseen as well as negligent conduct after discovery of the danger and in the use of the product will constitute a defense to an action based on strict liability.

Defendant argued that in the event this court embraced the doctrine of strict liability in tort, the ruling should be prospective only so as to be applicable only to conduct which occurred after the date of such decision. See Vickers v. Vickers, 109 N.H. 69, 242 A.2d 57; Phillips Exeter Academy v. Gleason, 102 N.H. 369, 376, 157 A.2d 769; Langdell v. Dodge, 100 N.H. 118, 122 A.2d 529. We decline to so limit the ruling in Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., supra. In Vickers v. Vickers, supra, a holding which eliminated the long- standing parental immunity from action by unemancipated minors was made prospective only. However, the rule which was there eliminated had provided complete insulation for the parent and made the investigation of the cases and the keeping of records completely unnecessary. Our statute of limitations permitting suit within two years after reaching majority (RSA 508:8) was also a factor.

Here the prior rule did not bar the action but simply required different proof. The Phillips Exeter Academy and Langdell cases, supra, involved a rule relating to the probate of estates upon which fiduciaries and parties had relied in the administration of estates which would be upset if the new rule were made retroactive. For a collection of cases and articles relating to the factors influencing retroactive or prospective application, see Annots. 10 A.L.R.3d 1371, 19 A.L.R.3d 138. We have considered all factors and are of the opinion that the rule of strict liability adopted in Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc. is not one which should cause us to depart from the usual common law rule that 'decisions overruling prior precedents were largely considered to be retrospective.' Vickers v....