481 S.W.3d 455
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Madden bought a used 1998 Mercedes ML320 with an as-is bill of sale; prior recall indicated buckle defect possibilities but inspection in 2003 found no defect.
- Madden was in a 2007 collision; she was ejected and seriously injured; police reported she was not wearing a seatbelt.
- Madden sued multiple defendants (Mercedes-Benz entities, TRW, LRW, Vowell, David) for negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty, alleging the seatbelt defect caused unlatching.
- Thevehicle and seatbelt could not be inspected at litigation time; a total loss occurred and the vehicle was scrapped post-accident.
- Mercedes/TRW and LRW moved for summary judgment; circuit court granted judgment against Madden on all claims in 2014; Madden timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Madden proved a defect at manufacture. | Madden’s expert suggested a defect may have existed and causation be proven by evidence. | Defendants showed no defect left Mercedes/TRW’s control; lack of inspection and conflicting evidence negate defect. | Yes, summary judgment affirmed; no material defect evidence. |
| Whether breach-of-warranty claims survive without a defect showing. | Breach of warranty mirrors products liability where defect is essential. | Without defect, warranty claims fail; as-is disclaimer bars implied warranties. | Affirmed; breach-of-warranty claims dismissed. |
| Whether LRW’s as-is disclaimer and warranty defenses are enforceable. | Disclaimers may not bar latent defects in a sale of a vehicle. | As-is clause and §4-2-316(3) effectively exclude implied warranties. | As-is clause sufficient to disclaim implied warranties. |
| Whether Madden’s express-warranty claim was properly dismissed and whether reliance is shown. | There may have been an express warranty based on seller statements. | Oral statements cannot create express warranty terms; no reliance shown. | Dismissed; no express warranty claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Gen. Motors Corp., 287 Ark. 390, 699 S.W.2d 741 (1985) (necessity of proving defect and substantial evidence standard)
- Golden Tee, Inc. v. Venture Golf Schs., Inc., 333 Ark. 253, 969 S.W.2d 625 (1998) (court need not address every element in a claim for summary judgment)
- Green Chevrolet Co. v. Kemp, 241 Ark. 62, 406 S.W.2d 142 (1966) (reliance issues and terms of sales agreements)
- Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alter, 309 Ark. 426, 834 S.W.2d 136 (1992) (reliance essential for express-warranty claims)
- New Maumelle Harbor v. Rochelle, 338 Ark. 43, 991 S.W.2d 552 (1999) (burden shifting on summary judgment; against moving party)
- Meadors v. Still, 344 Ark. 307, 40 S.W.3d 294 (2001) (summary judgment standard; view evidence favorably to non-moving party)
- Mitchell v. Lincoln, 366 Ark. 592, 237 S.W.3d 455 (2006) (summary judgment standard and material facts)