Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp.

• Decision Date: 04 September 1986
• Citation: 229 Cal.Rptr. 605,185 Cal.App.3d 135
• Parties: , 2 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1252, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,162 Daniel WILLIAMS, By and Through his Guardian ad Litem Robert Williams; Robert Williams; and Hurminia Williams, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BEECHNUT NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. B017875.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 605

229 Cal.Rptr. 605

185 Cal.App.3d 135, 2 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1252,

Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,162

Daniel WILLIAMS, By and Through his Guardian ad Litem Robert Williams; Robert Williams; and Hurminia Williams, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BEECHNUT NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. B017875.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

Sept. 4, 1986.

Matz, Brody & Albert, Steven B. Effres, Van Nuys, for plaintiffs and appellants

Chettle & Valentine, Manhattan Beach, for defendant and respondent.

EAGLESON, Associate Justice.

Daniel Williams, through his guardian ad litem, appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer to his fourth amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Of primary concern is whether a glass juice bottle intended for use by infants can be considered a defective product because of its susceptibility to breakage and the resultant foreseeability of injury to its intended user. We answer in the affirmative and reverse the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Daniel's complaint is comprised of four uncaptioned causes of action, the core allegations of which follow. ¹ Daniel's parents purchased an eight-ounce bottle of apple juice to feed three and one-half-year-old Daniel. The bottle was constructed of glass, shaped like a "baby bottle," and was equipped with a screw top mouth that could accommodate "plastic and rubber type screw on nipples commonly used by infants to drink the liquid from the bottle." Additionally, the bottle was designed, manufactured, packaged, distributed and advertised by Beechnut Nutrition Corporation (Beechnut).

On the date it was purchased, the bottle was given to Daniel with the intention that he drink from it as a "baby bottle." Daniel fell while the bottle was in his possession. It broke into sharp pieces and cut his left wrist. As a result this action was commenced.

The trial court sustained Beechnut's general demurrer to the fourth amended complaint without leave to amend. The court relied upon the "reasons" stated "in [the] moving papers", and the "failure to comply with Law Department policy 103(d)."

DISCUSSION

"The scope of our review is limited to a determination of whether [Beechnut's] demurrer was erroneously sustained without leave to amend and whether such a determination was an abuse of discretion. (Citation.)" (Shurpin v. Elmhirst, supra, 148 Cal.App.3d at p. 98, 195 Cal.Rptr. 737.)

Daniel's various causes of action are not labeled for easy recognition. ²

Nevertheless, the substantive allegations indicate that he seeks recovery under four theories: (I) strict products liability, (II) negligence, and (III) breach of express and (IV) implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for intended purpose. We discuss them in that order.

I STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, sets forth the two tests for strict products liability in California. "[A] product may be found defective in design, so as to subject a manufacturer to strict liability for resulting injuries, under either of two alternative tests. First, a product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff establishes that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner [consumer contemplation test]. Second, a product may alternatively be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product's design proximately caused his injury and the defendant fails to establish in light of relevant factors, that, on balance, the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design" [safer alternative design test]. Daniel's complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish the defective design of the Beechnut bottle under either of the Barker tests.

The complaint states that Daniel was using the bottle in its intended or foreseeable manner when it broke and injured him. These allegations imply the foreseeability of an infant dropping the bottle while in his possession. Likewise, it is foreseeable that the resultant broken glass may be injurious to human health, and that the inherent danger posed by a glass container, while obvious to an adult, is not cognizable by a child Daniel's age. On their face, these allegations fall within Barker's consumer contemplation test.

The safer alternative design test is also satisfied by the allegation that the glass bottle was inherently dangerous to its intended infant user. This test involves a balancing of the danger posed by the product's design against the product's utility. But this does not necessarily require that the product's risk of harm outweigh the product's benefits. Liability may be found where it would have been feasible for the manufacturer to reduce the risk of harm by manufacturing an alternative product or design. As stated in in Buccery v. General Motors Corp. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 533, 132 Cal.Rptr. 605: "any product so designed that it causes injury when used or misused in a foreseeable fashion is defective if the design feature which caused the injury created a danger which was readily preventable through the employment of existing technology at a cost consonant with the economical use of the product." (Id. at p. 547, 132 Cal.Rptr. 605; see also Baker v. Chrysler Corp. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 710, 716, 127 Cal.Rptr. 745.)

Beechnut challenges these conclusions with non-California authorities which discuss the suitability of glass for use as a container and the consequences of container abuse by children. The central theme of these cases is that glass containers are not defective because, as a matter of common knowledge, they break if they are abused. (See, e.g., Molden v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (Ga.1985) 175 Ga.App. 298, 333 S.E.2d 175; Venezia v. Miller Brewing Beechnut's analysis of this problem is snortsighted. These cases appear analogous only because they involve young children "abusing" (throwing or dropping) glass containers. However, none consider the type of product involved here--a container that allegedly was manufactured, designed, and advertised, specifically for infant use. Also, "even if the obviousness of the peril is conceded, the modern approach does not preclude liability solely because a danger is obvious." Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 465, 474, 85 Cal.Rptr. 629, 467 P.2d 229.) Moreover, none of Beechnut's authorities consider or apply the Barker v. Lull tests for strict product liability.

                Co.  (1st Cir.1980) 626 F.2d 188.)   It is therefore argued that breakage of a glass container due to abuse is not actionable
                

Beechnut further contends that Daniel's injuries arose not from a defective product, but rather, from his parents' modification of the product or their negligent supervison of its use. These arguments cannot be advanced by demurrer. Creation of an unreasonable risk of harm through product modification or negligent supervision is not clearly established on the face of Daniel's complaint. Instead, these theories must be pled as affirmative defenses. (Code Civ.Proc., § 430.30, subd. (b).)

II NEGLIGENCE

Four elements are required to successfully plead a negligence cause of action: (1) defendant's legal duty of care to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty; (3) injury proximately caused by that duty; and (4) damages to plaintiff. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, § 527, p. 558.) Daniel's complaint contains all four elements.

A manufacturer/seller of a product is under a duty to exercise reasonable care in its design so that it can be safely used as intended by its buyer/consumer. (See Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co., supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 470, 85 Cal.Rptr. 629, 467 P.2d 229; see also Rest.2d Torts, §§ 395, 398.) Similarly, "the manufacturer's duty of care extends to all persons within the range of potential danger." (Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co., supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 473, 85 Cal.Rptr. 629, 467 P.2d 229.) Consequently, the allegations that Beechnut manufactured and sold this product knowing that an infant like Daniel could drop the bottle while drinking from it satisfactorily plead Beechnut's duty to protect Daniel from such known or foreseeable risks...