Barko Hydraulics, LLC v. Michael Shepherd
167 So. 3d 304
Ala.2014Background
- Shepherd purchased a Barko 495ML knuckle boom loader in 2008 for $202,274 and financed it with Wells Fargo.
- Barko issued an express warranty promising defects in material or workmanship would be repaired or replaced during 3 years/6,000 hours for major components and 1 year/2,000 hours for other parts, with liability limited and exclusive remedies.
- The loader allegedly began overheating, consuming excessive fuel/hydraulic fluid after about four months, and hydraulic pumps later failed.
G & S Equipment serviced the loader under warranty several times; Barko did not correct repeated problems despite notices.
- In 2010 the warranty expired; repairs at cost were refused; Shepherd repossessed and Wells Fargo obtained a deficit judgment.
- Shepherd sued Barko for breach of express warranty; the trial court submitted the claim to a jury which awarded $450,000; Barko appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence of breach of express warranty | Shepherd: evidence showed failure to conform to warranty; jury should decide maintenance issues. | Barko: no defect proven; improper maintenance could bar breach. | Yes; jury question supported by conflicting evidence |
| Whether damages, including mental anguish, were proper | Shepherd: damages allowed under UCC when warranty fails of essential purpose; mental anguish may apply. | Barko: mental anguish not recoverable; only incidental/consequential damages. | Mental anguish not recoverable; reverse for new trial on damages |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove a defect | Shepherd: need not prove a specific defect; failure to conform suffices. | Barko: required evidence of a warrantable defect or expert proof for breach. | No expert proof required under express warranty context; jury may decide |
| Whether the warranty period expiration foreclosed the claim | Shepherd: Barko failed to repair despite repeated complaints; warranty not cured by time. | Barko: pumps failed after warranty; liability limited by warranty terms. | Not dispositive; jury could find warranty failed of its essential purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Miller, 693 So.2d 1372 (Ala.1997) (express warranties treated like contracts; defect proof not always essential)
- Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Milam & Co. Constr., Inc., 901 So.2d 84 (Ala.2004) (whether express warranty is a question for the jury)
- Brooks v. Colonial Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 579 So.2d 1328 (Ala.1991) (expert testimony may be necessary for complex systems)
- Ex parte Miller (component warranty discussion in Miller), 693 So.2d 1375 (Ala.1997) (distinguishes defects-in-materials vs. failures under warranties)
- Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Laird, 432 So.2d 1259 (Ala.1983) (limited remedy fails of essential purpose; allow §7-2-714 damages)
- Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 827 So.2d 63 (Ala.2001) (mental-anguish damages generally not recoverable in contract)
- Royal Typewriter Co. v. Xerographic Supplies Corp., 719 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir.1983) (jury issues on maintenance impact and warranty breach)