Cengage Advantage Books: Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business 3rd Edition by Marianne Jennings

تمرين 9

Smith v. Coleman Co. 71 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 131 (M.D. Ala. 2010)
"Towing" the Line with an Eye on Warnings
Facts
Ginger Smith (plaintiff) was a passenger on Ronald Smith's boat on West Point Lake, Alabama. Ronald Smith (no relation to Ginger) was operating the boat, which was towing Ms. Smith's son, Shane McClellan, on an inflatable inner tube behind the boat. Shane McClellan weighed 150 pounds at the time and the tube itself weighed 5 to 10 pounds. The inner tube was tied to the boat by a 50-foot Model 51650 polypropylene line that was manufactured by Lehigh Consumer Products, LLC, but carried the label of The Coleman Company (defendants) pursuant to a licensing arrangement, and was purchased at a nearby Wal-Mart store.
While Shane McClellan was being towed on the inner tube, the line snapped, and the end connected to the boat flew back toward the boat and hit Ms. Smith in the eye, causing the loss of that eye.
The packaging of the line contained several statements.
A paper insert identifies it as a "50 ft x 5/16 in UTILITY LINE." Just below that appears the phrase "Ideal for use on boat or dock." Still farther down the insert, and in an all-caps font smaller than that used in the first statement, appears, divided over two lines, "175 LBS WORKING LOAD LIMIT/STAYS AFLOAT."
A longer cautionary message appears at the bottom of the insert. It states:
Avoid using a knot, splicing is preferable. Knots reduce the strength of the rope up to 40%. Do not use this product where personal safety could be endangered. Never stand in line with a rope under tension. Such a rope, particularly nylon rope, may recoil (snap back). Misuse can result in serious injury or death.
There was a warning label printed on the inner tube itself, a portion of which advised boaters to "[u]se a tow rope of at least 1500 lbs average tensile strength for pulling a single person.…" The overall size of this warning label is 8" × 9", and its text complies with the warning label recommended by the Water Sports Industry Association for use on inflatable tubes.
Ms. Smith filed suit against Coleman, Wal-Mart, and Ronald Smith. (Wal-Mart and Smith were dismissed from the case). Coleman moved for summary judgment because of the warnings.
Judicial Opinion
WATKINS, District Judge
It is a defense to a negligent failure to warn claim that there is no evidence "that the allegedly inadequate warning would have been read and heeded and would have kept the accident from occurring." In this case, Defendants point to the deposition testimony of Ronald Smith, who purchased the line and attached it to the boat and inner tube. Mr. Smith's testimony was that he did not recall reading "any other part of the warnings on the package other than the poundage."
Conceding that Mr. Smith did not recall reading the relevant warnings, Plaintiff's argument seems to be that the phrase "warning" has a particular, technical meaning, such that the statements on the package here were not "warnings" for the purposes of the Alabama case law. The contours of this view are not very well fleshed out, but the argument is perhaps that because the statements on the packaging did not actually contain the word "WARNING," with accompanying symbols such as an exclamation mark within a triangle, they were not actually warnings at all, but merely "safety information."
Certainly, the common use of the word "warning" does not limit the concept to statements appearing under the word "WARNING," accompanied by particular symbols, or colored in bright orange. The statements appearing on the utility line's package are cautionary in nature, designed to warn , in the ordinary sense of the term, users of the product about potential dangers of usage.
Thus, the court concludes that the statements on the package were warnings for purposes of Alabama law. The only remaining question is whether failure to heed the warnings caused the accident. The court is reluctant to conclude that the warning against uses "where personal safety could be endangered" can suffice for this purpose; it is so vague as to be essentially meaningless.
The other two warnings, however, are quite specific, and both were violated by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith tied knots in the rope in order to attach it to the boat and the inner tube. Both Mr. Smith and Plaintiff were on board the open boat towing the inner tube behind it; in the ordinary use of language, they were both standing "in line with a rope under tension."
Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how the rope could ever be used for towing someone behind an open boat without both the person being towed and persons on board the boat violating the warning against standing in line with a rope under tension.
With respect to the express warranty claim, Plaintiff's claim is that the statement that the line was "ideal for use on boat or dock" constitutes an express warranty. Statements "that are mere sales talk or 'puffery' do not give rise to express warranties," while "representations of fact" may give rise to such warranties.
While the word "ideal" seems closer to the description of an item as "in good shape" that Alabama courts have found to constitute "puffery,".… Summary judgment is due to be granted on this claim.
The final warranty claim is for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Plaintiff has done no more than assert that Defendants had "reason to know" that the line would be used to tow persons behind a boat; regardless, Plaintiff clearly did not "rely on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods." Rather, Mr. Smith selected and purchased the utility line for himself at a Wal-Mart store. Summary judgment is due to be granted on the warranty claims. Summary judgment for Defendants.
Case Questions
1. What is the law with regard to product users who do not read package warnings?
2. What point does the court make about Ms. Smith not actually being the purchaser of the line?
3. What lessons should Coleman take from its experience of being a defendant along with being licensee for the line?