*1 IN THE SUPREME COURT HERBERT DEAN BOUDREAU MILO BAUGHMAN MILO BAUGHMAN and DESIGN, INC.
No. 409PA87 (Filed 1988) 2 June § governed by proce- 1. 21— rights Courts conflict of laws —substantial lex loci — rights governed by dural lex fori affecting rights parties by Matters of the substantial the are determined loci, claim, the procedural lex law of the situs of the by rights and remedial or fori, thus, forum; determined lex the North law under Carolina law injury giving liability the when rise to strict in claim occurs state, governs another the law of state resolution the substantive controversy. issues the 21.6; § products 2. liability § Courts Uniform Commercial Code 3— action —trans- bearing “appropriate “appropriate actions to relation” North rela- Carolina — injury occurring tion” applicable in Florida —Florida law defined — warranty products liability Plaintiffs breach of claims in this action are by governed provides the applied U.C.C. that North Carolina lаw will be State,” bearing appropriate to “ap- “transactions relation and propriate interpreted significant relationship”; relation” “most mean therefore, sale, distribution, place delivery, Florida—the and use of the question, place injury well chair as the the state with most the —was significant relationship warranty claims and thus state law whose 25-1-105(1)(1986). applied. N.C.G.S. § § 3. repose Limitation Actions 1— statutes limitation and statutes of —dis- tinction of limitation Statutes serve limit the time within which an action accrued, repose be commenced after the of action cause while statutes of beyond plaintiffs fixed recognized, set a time limit which a claim will not be repose and distinction between statutes of and cor- limitation statutes responds procedural to the distinction bеtween and substantive laws. 21.5; § § repose 4. Limitation of Courts Actions 4.1— statute of as substantive provision applicable law to tort claim —claim not time barred —Florida repose provisions Statutes of will be treated as substantive choice purposes, applicable statute of thus will be determined loci, claim; therefore, 12-year lex law of situs of the Florida statute sale, plaintiffs delivery repose applied claims where Florida, injury product place use of and the itself took filing years plaintiffs just purchase claims over six after the initial timely. design Negligence edge foreseeability- 29.3— on chrome chair — — intervening negligence summary judgment improper of manufacturer — injuries In to recover for sustained when he cut his foot action defendants, chrome-plаted tub-style designed chair record *2 Baughman breached genuine fact to whether defendants presented issues of material veneer, duty by specifying which is the use of chrome of reasonable care guard edge, failing type edge sharp to include some a but known have reasonably dangerously sharp edges design were a the chair and whether lacking edge guard consequence design that defendant’s of a an so foreseeable by negligence. design negligence not insulated the manufacturer’s in the was injury liability jury questions design 22— to user —strict 6. Sales 8 chair — — by injuries plaintiff when he cut his In an to recover sustained action for tub-style by chrome-plated designed chair defend- on of a swivel foot ants, the base jury questions on the of evidence was sufficient to raise forecast liability plaintiff required defendants’ where was to establish elements of strict chair, condition, relationship a causal con- its defective the existence of injuries, plaintiffs and and that nection between the chair’s condition injury product at the defect existed both at time of the and time the left seller; the hands of the manufacturer or the individual defendant admitted edge designing sharp that was the chair but on the chair a contended defect; design lapse purchase manufacturing rather than of time between the safety and the manufacturer’s were of the chair and the accident record of simply determining product to be considered whether the circumstances distributor; was when it left control of the manufacturer or and defective type alleged, was to infеr razor- it reasonable of defect a uniform edge, sharpness around the entire circumference of the tub would not have use of the chair. arisen from injury allegedly privity designer on defective 7. Sales 17.2— chair —no between —summary judgment implied warranty proper user on breach of claim by injured allegedly Under has de- Florida where been defendants, relationship fective but no contractual he liability pursue appropriate, privity action if strict cause of but absent him; therefore, warranty summary implied judg- vehicle of is not available to granted properly plaintiffs was ment implied for defendants on breach of claims for warranty merchantability warranty implied and breach of of fitness particular purpose. for dissenting. Justice Webb plaintiffs petition discretionary
ON for review a decision (1987), S.E. Appeals, of the Court summary affirming judgment favor of defendants entered DeRamus, J., Court, at the September 1986 session of Superior County. Heard Supreme February in the Court FORSYTH Faison, Brown, Faison, Fletcher & O. Brough, by William Barber, Poole, C. Timothy R. Gary plaintiff-appellant. Hutchins, Moore, & Tyndall, Doughton Tyndall Richard Jr., Davis, H. Lee defendant-appellees. MARTIN, Justice.
The sole issue for review on this appeal is the trial whether court properly granted summary defendants’ motion for judg- matter, however, As a preliminary ment. this case a choice poses lawof dilemma. We must determine which statute repose ap- Carolina, plies products liability action: that of North state, Florida, forum or that of the state where oc- curred. We hold that the Florida statute of rеpose applies and summary judgment inappropriately entered and strict claims.
Plaintiff brought on 5 action March naming as de- fendant in both an individual corporate and a capacity the North of designer Carolina a chrome-plated, tub-style chair designated model complaint number 1183. The alleged resi- plaintiff, Massachusetts, dent of injured had his foot on the metal surface of chair in while friends in visiting Florida. Plaintiff compensatory punitive claimed damages theories of based on negligent breach of design, implied warranty merchantability, implied warranty breach of particular of fitness for a purpose, liability and strict for injecting inherently dangerous product the stream commerce. into
Defendants’ answer denied the allegations material of the of, aliа, complaint and asserted contributory negli- defenses inter manufacturer, independent gence, negligence of the chair’s accord satisfaction, jurisdiction. and lack of 24On June personal defendants for summary judgment. July moved On 14 were permitted defendants to amend their answer include a on further defense based North of repose. Carolina statutes summary Thereafter the trial in judge granted judgment defend- favor. The Court Appeals ants’ affirmed.
Plaintiff contends applicable statute of 95.031(2), Statutes which provides Florida as follows: § 95.11(3) for products Actions and fraud under s. must begun period prescribed within the in this chapter, from period running the time the facts rise to the giving were cause action discovered or should have been discov- with the due diligence, running ered exercise of instеad 95.11(3), any any prescribed from date elsewhere s. but in com- delivery the date years event within after years or within 12 its original purchaser product
pleted fraud, regard- alleged commission the date after was or fraud in the or the product the defect less of date been discovered.1 should have added.)
(Emphasis hand, Defendants, 1- maintain that N.C.G.S. on the other 1-50(6) 50(6) provides: controls. Section recovery injury, damages personal for No for the action any arising or out upon based damage property death or any to a shall be defect relation alleged failure initial purchase the date six years more than brought after or consumption. use added.) (Emphasis design that defendants sold The record indicates Inc., a North fur- Thayer-Coggin, number 1183 to Carolina
model
manufacturer,
manufactured the
Thayer-Coggin
niture
in 1967.
Florida,
store in
turn sold
chair and sold it to a furniture
January
on
Plaintiffs
in-
it
Floridian hosts
and the
was filed
jury
complaint
occurred on March 1982
dates,
*4
action
plaintiff brought
March 1985.
these
the
Applying
by
twelve-year
the Florida statute
period prescribed
within the
six-year
by
1-
period prescribed
but not within the
50(6).
N.C.G.S. §
is time-
plaintiffs
therefore contend that
action
Defendants
law.2
barred under North Carolina
see Battilla v. Allis
constitutionality,
response
In
to confusion about
its
1980)
(Fla.
Mfg.
(holding
Chalmers
unconstitu-
392 So. 2d
statute
874
dismissed,
(Fla.
Cincinnati, Inc.,
tional);
1985), appeal
Pullum v.
So. 2d 657
475
476
(1986)
1114,
reconstitutionalizing
Battilla (overruling
2d
U.S.
90 L.Ed.
174
95.031(2)
recently
to
repose),
amended
delete the
statute of
Florida Statutes §
liability
twelve-year period prescribed
actions. See 1986 Fla. Sess. Law
(West).
plaintiff
dispute
claim well within
As there is no
filed his
Serv. 86-271
twelve-year
implications period, we
the
need not concern ourselves with
upon
right
to
change
the statute
an affirmative defense.
defendants’
assert
by
time-barred
2. Defendants
also contend that
action would be
N.C.G.S.
1-52(16),
injury
provides
personal
property
of action for
or
causes
§
bodily
physical damage
or
to
damage
not
until
harm
the claimant
“shall
accrue
reasonably
apparent
apparent
ought
to have become
property
his
becomes
claimant,
no
accrue
Provided that
action shall
whichever event first occurs.
cause
335
v.
Our
analysis
by
choice of law
complicated
somewhat
fact that
four
recovery
raises
distinct
theories
in four
separate
counts
We
complaint.
plaintiffs
first аddress
liability.
claims of
strict
[1]
Our traditional conflict of laws rule is that matters affecting
loci,
rights
the substantial
the parties
are determined
lex
claim,
the law of the situs of the
procedural
remedial or
fori,
rights
determined
lex
the law of the forum. Charnock
(1943).
360,
Taylor,
v.
223 N.C.
Shaw
Smith,
States.
rule in
to
United
majority
this
continues
1041,
States,
at
app.
Hastings
in the United
38
L.J.
Law
Choice of
Courts,
in the
1172-74;
Law
into Practice: Choice
Theory
Kay,
(1983).
521,
no rea-
at
We see
582
591-92
app.
L. Rev.
&
34 Mercer
objec-
It
rule
this time.
an
this well-settled
at
son to abandon
certainty,
to
afford
approach
convenient
continues
tive and
uniformity,
in choice
law deci-
of outcome
predictability
law
Florida applies
substantive
We hold that
sions.
liability claims.
and strict
plaintiffs
plied,
355,
[2]
We next consider
117
is contractual
S.E. 2d 21
breach
warranty
in
the choice
nature.
Traditionally,
claims.
Wyatt
law
A
warranty,
Equipment
under the
with
express
lex loci
Co., 253
respect
or im
rule,
N.C.
by
controlled
warranty
claims were
features
substantive
or,
was made
in certain
of the state where the contract
law
instances,
performance.
Bernick v.
law of
state
435,
However,
Jurden,
S.E. 2d 405.
actions for
306 N.C.
warranty
now
governed
Uniform
implied
breach
Code,
in
chapter
in North
adopted
Carolina
Commercial
applies
25 of the
Statutes. The Uniform Commercial Code
General
warranty
actions.
Morrison v.
claims
See
298,
Sears,
&
Ber
Roebuck
an between the North law will be agreement ap Carolina to “transactions plied bearing appropriate relation 25-1-105(1)(1986). The State.” is silent on N.C.G.S. Code § relation,” of the term its meaning “appropriate leaving interpreta judicial tion to decision. See 25-1-105 N.C.G.S. Official Comment. *6 IN THE SUPREME COURT Baughman
Boudreau con- yet the term. We have therefore to define This Court guidance. jurisdictions sulted decisions other jurisdictions some have inter- Our research reveals ap- relation” the provision requiring the preted “appropriate itself has significant of forum law whenever forum plication Law: case. See The U.C.C. and Choice Siegel, contact with the Law?, 496 n.2 Am. U.L. Rev. Choice or Forum Forum (1972); Note, Relation” Laws and the “Appropriate Conflicts of Code, 40 Gеo. 1-105 Commercial Test Section Uniform (1971-72). L. 803 n.29 Rev. Wash. very reading of
This with a literal-minded approach comports Code, is outmoded. The but such an at best interpretation in- originally of law provision of the Code’s choice language juris- of forum law those encourage application tended Code, thereby assuring which had enacted dictions ju- at issue when a non-Code would the transaction govern Code Ramerman, & The involved. See Nordstrom risdiction was also Law, the Choice 1969 Duke L.J. Commercial Code and Uniform 623; Weintraub, Liability: Impact Choice Law Products Commercial Code and Recent Developments Uniform L. Rev. 1429 The drafters of the Tex. Analysis, Conflicts enactment of the Code widespread did not foresee the provision enacted the country. having With all but one statе throughout Code, strictly longer forum-oriented choice of law rule no in accordance with necessary application to ensure Code Moreover, Id. such an approach of the drafters. the intentions v. Ve- United Overseas Bank likely shopping. to foster forum (D. Inc., neers, reasons we 375 F. 596 Md. For these Supp. approach. forum-oriented reject relation test as jurisdictions appropriate interpret
Other
use its standard choice of
for the forum state to
an invitation
Bros.,
F.
Discount Bank Ltd. v.
Barclays
Bogharian
rules. See
(C.D.
F.
grounds,
rev’d on other
Cal.
Supp.
(9th
1984);
Feedlot v. Great Western Sugar
Golden Plains
Cir.
(W.D.S.D. 1984);
Laboratories,
Inc. v.
Travenol
588 F. Supp.
Ltd.,
Zotal,
Siegel,
394 Mass.
474 N.E. 2d
Law?, 21
Am.
and Choice
Law: Forum Choice
Forum
U.C.C.
(1972);Note,
496 n.3
Laws and the “Ap
Rev.
U.L.
Conflicts of
1-105
Commer-
Relation” Test
Sectiоn
propriate
Uniform
*7
(1971-72).
797,
We
Code,
802-03 n.28
L. Rev.
40
Wash.
dal
Geo.
to N.C.G.S.
Comment
The North Carolina
this view.
reject
was intend-
the section
enactment of
indicates that the
25-1-105
§
respect
law rules
choice of
rigid
this state’s
change
ed to
v.
Bernick
Code.
Uniform Commercial
under
transactions
435,
Jurden,
293 S.E. 2d
306 N.C.
relation
appropriate
that the
Finally, many
hold
jurisdictions
analysis” or
“interest
same as modern
essentially
test
contacts,”
forum to determine
which
requires
“grouping
See,
to the case.
relationship
significant
has the most
which state
Co.,
F. Supp.
433
Liability
Mut.
Ins.
v. American
Simmons
e.g.,
(5th
(S.D.
1977);
1976),
Landmark
aff’d,
Florida —the
injury
be the state with the
place
as well as the
product,
—to
warranty claim.
relationship to the
significant
most
place
the law of the
suggested
have
Commentators
cases.
products
be supreme
distribution
should
And, Incidentally,
Kozyris,
Facing Its
Analysis
Interest
Critics —
Law
Products Liabili-
Be Done About Choice
What Should
(1985). This is
true with
particularly
St.
ty?,
Ohio
L.J.
THE
COURT
IN
SUPREME
warranty
Owens-Corning
See
claims.
to breach of
respect
1982) (if
(D. Kan.
546 F.
Supp.
Dev. v. Sonic
Fiberglas
existed,
delivery and
in state of
it was breached
warranty
any
use).
protection
warranties involves
enforcing
A
interest
state’s
into
goods
movement of defective
commercial
its citizens from
(D.R.I.
321 F. Supp.
G.D.
&
Oresman v.
Searle
that state.
1971).
has a
contract
is consummated
in which a sales
The state
and economic policies
the social
applying
interest
significant
Quadrini
Air
warranty.
Sikorsky
law of
in its own
embodied
(D.
Division, Etc.,
425 F.
Conn.
Supp.
craft
sale
state where the
holding
Cases
and/or
relationship
significant
had the most
place
took
*8
Valley
v. Tennessee
following: Wayne
liability action include the
(5th
1984),
denied, 469 U.S.
cert.
F.
392
Cir.
730
2d
Authority,
(state
(1985)
sale,
1159,
delivery
injury,
and
922
of
83 L.Ed. 2d
manufacture);
v. General
Bilancia
of
interested than state
more
1976) (law
(4th
in
state where
F.
621
538
2d
Cir.
Motors Corp.,
relation as to
control
an appropriate
has such
jury occurred
351 F. Supp.
Corporation,
USM
Company
Gates Rubber
ling);
(7th
(S.D.
1972),
603
508 F. 2d
Cir.
on other grounds,
329
Ill.
rev’d
1975) (state
more inter
use of
delivery,
product
and
injury,
manufacture);
v. National Semi-Con
Jackson
state of
ested than
1986) (state
(S.D.
Checker,
Miss.
660 F.
65
Supp.
ducter Data
contacts); Armstrong Cork
significant
sale had most
injury and
1977) (state
(E.D.
413
Pa.
Supp.
433 F.
Mfg.
Co. v. Drott
ap
and is most
centered
where contacts most
delivery
sale
Dierck
v. Julius
warranty); Martin
as to breach of
propriate
463,
Div. 2d
(App.
Statutes of limitation are seen as from the discovery injury, time of or in cases where that They is difficult to detect. serve to limit the time within may which an action be commenced of action after the cause hand, has accrued. Statutes of on the other create repose, time which are in- limitations not measured from the date of jury. These time limitations often run from defendant’s last act rise to the claim or giving completion from substantial some service rendered defendant. n.3, 328 S.E. 2d 276-77 n.3 N.C. 1-50(6) Statutes such as N.C.G.S. and Florida Statutes § 95.031(2) have been denominated statutes because manufacture,
they set a fixed limit after the time of the product’s sale, delivery beyond which a plaintiffs claim will recog not be nized. Bolick v. American Barmag 293 S.E. 2d 415; Lamb v. Volkswagenwerk 631 F. Aktiengesellschaft, Supp. (S.D. (11th aff'd, Fla. 835 F. Cir. “[T]he repose serves as an unyielding absolute barrier prevents s of action even right before his cause of action ac 626, 633, Littlejohn, crue.” Black v. (1985). 312 N.C. 325 S.E. 2d
The distinction between statutes of limitation and statutes of repose corresponds to the distinction between procedural (4th substantive laws. 1987). v. Gоad Celotex 831 F. Corp., 2d 508 Cir.
Ordinary
clearly
statutes of limitation are
procedural, affect-
only
remedy
ing
directly and not
right
to recover. See
166,
(1947);
v.
Williams
227
41 S.E.
Thompson,
N.C.
2d 359
Sayer
(1945).
Henderson,
642,
v.
225
35 S.E.
N.C.
2d 875
The statute hand,
repose, on the other
acts as a condition precedent
to the ac-
364,
tion
Bolick v.
itself.
American
306
Barmag
293
N.C.
S.E. 2d 415. Unlike a limitation provision
merely
makes a
unenforceable,
claim
precedent
condition
establishes
a time
in which
period
suit must be
brought
order for the cause of ac-
341
v.
tion to
If
action
not
within the
recognized.
brought
no
“literally
specified
cause
action.
period,
injuria
wrong
harm
been
damnum
absque
that has
done is
—&
North
Rosenberg
which the
affords no
v. Town
law
redress.”
(1972).
190, 199,
662,
Bergen,
A.
reason
61 N.J.
293
2d
For this
667
we have
as a
previously
repose
characterized
stаtute
substantive definition of
rather than a
limita-
rights
procedural
tion on
Lamb
remedy
Wedgewood
to enforce
rights.
used
(1983);
419,
South
Bolick Ameri-
Corp., 308 N.C.
This
holds true in
characterization
the context of choice of
law. When commencement of an action within a specified period is
relief,
precedent
condition
“the limitation
is consid-
period
ered
be so tied
with the
up
right that for choice of
underlying
law
purposes,
limitation clause is treated as a ‘substantive’
(E.D.N.Y.
Rice,
rule of law.” Chartener v.
Supp.
F.
1967).
authority
overwhelming weight
other jurisdictions
accepts the characterization of
repose
statutes of
as substantive
See,
in a
provisions
choice of
Goad
e.g.,
law context.
v. Celotex
(4th
1987);
2d
Corp., 831 F.
v. Tennessee
Wayne
Valley
Cir.
(5th
denied,
F.
Authority, 730
2d 392
cert.
Cir.
469 U.S.
2d 922
President and
George
L.Ed.
Directors of
(4th
Madden,
1981);
Davis,
town v.
660 F.
2d
Cir.
Pottratz
(D.
1984);
588 F.
Nieman v. Press
Supp.
Md.
& Equipment
(S.D.
Co.,
1984);
Sales
588 F.
Clinton
Supp. 650
Ohio
Harris v.
(Iowa
Corn Processing
N.W.
But
see
Regents,
Etc.
Acc.
Idem.
Cal.
Hartford
P. 2d
In reaching the opposite
the Court
Appeals
relied on “public policy”
exception. It is true we have held that
*10
plaintiffs
3. Because we rule in
favor
applicability
as to the
of the Florida
repose, we
plaintiffs
statute of
need not
assignments
address
of
regarding
error
the
pleadings.
amendment of defendants’
IN THE
342
SUPREME COURT
or
not be given
law
thereon will
effect or еn-
foreign
rights based
to the
of the
Davis
opposed
public policy
forced if
settled
forum.
(1967).
120,
However,
Davis,
152 S.E.
the mere
N.C.
the
of the
from that of the other juris-
fact that
law
forum differs
contrary
diction does not mean that
statute is
to
foreign
Electric
Co. v.
public policy
Light
Clapper,
of the forum. Bradford
(1932).
L.Ed.
To render
law
foreign
286 U.S.
unen-
contrary to
some
policy,
as
it must violate
public
preva-
forceable
or
conception
good
principle
lent
morals
fundamental
natural
injustice
of the forum
justice
people
involve
state.
S.E. 2d 884
Howard
Hunsinger,
Ellison
N.C.
Howard,
public
This
policy excep-
Having determined that substantive Florida plaintiffs to action not time- claims and applies to by the we now turn repose, barred Florida statute ques- summary tion whether would otherwise survive plaintiff’s case judgment. Procedure, North of Civil lex Carolina Rules as case, procedural provide that sum- govern aspects
fori
depositions,
will be
mary judgment
granted
pleadings,
“if
file,
interrogatories,
together
and admissions
answers
affidavits,
any,
no
as
genuine
if
show that
there is
issue
any
judgment
is entitled to a
party
fact and that
any material
56(c).
By
P.
a motion
making
N.C.R.
matter
law.”
Civ.
may
plaintiff
produce
force a
summary
a defendant
judgment,
will
demonstrating
able
a forecast
evidence
Pur-
at trial. Dickens v.
facie case
prima
to make out at least
(1981).
party moving
year, 302 N.C.
S.E.
any
the lack of
summary
establishing
judgment
the burden
Deese,
218 S.E. 2d
issue. Caldwell v.
triable
that an
proving
The movant
meet
burden
nonexistent, or
party’s
claim is
element
opposing
essential
cannot pro-
discovery
opposing party
that the
by showing through
of his claim or can-
element
support an essential
duce evidence
*11
IN THE SUPREME
COURT
Baughman
Boudreau
not
an
defense
claim.
surmount
affirmative
which would bar the
Jurden,
405;
Bernick
293 S.E. 2d
v. Pur
N.C.
Dickens
year, 302
The reveals model record that number is a bent ply- wood designed by swivel-tilt tub-chair in 1967. defendants The chair has a chrome about veneer one-sixteenth of an inch thick which is bonded to its shell. base of plywood upon The the chair recessed; which the and portion “tub” tilts swivels somewhat the diameter of the base is about two less inches than the diame- ter of the tub. bottom of the tub is three off about inches the floor. defendant,
Milo Baughman, the individual testified in his dep- osition chair designed that the was for residential use and that it is a assumption people natural that walk homes. barefoot their Nonetheless, he anticipated never his might put that someone foot in the area between back of chair floor. He and the was with the of clear plastic “edge familiar use welts known guards.” edge are used to of the guards protect These bottom metal on chrome-trimmed furniture. Model numbеr 1183 was not designed edge guard necessary. because not seem it did feasible, technically was would alien Although it it have been trim, chair concept placed the visual to have a wood welt around the veneer. If molding, edge cloth chrome the chair with the extending were manufactured chrome veneer beyond the it would create a surface that would cut plywood, dangerous bare skin. This would be a condition. Number designed so that would be specifically plywood chrome it is design drawing flush. This was not noted on the because so “I in all drawings put obvious. The do not include all details: don’t screws, dowels, I I in the in the put put don’t don’t I things my mechanisms. ... don’t are not specify problems. These are engineers plant.” done sketch, A role is make designer’s conceptual provide skеtch, supervise making working full-sized detail purpose supervision of a model. The to assure responsibilities looks right. designer’s finished inspectors The manufacturer’s engineering.” and not “aesthetic exactly right.” isn’t through that occasionally something go “let than the through. Other problems get quality In all factories some *12 action, single complaint a have not received defendants present any designs. furniture of their injury involving Inc., testi- Thayer-Coggin, Thayer president Coggin, Julius generally Milo Baughman that defendant in his deposition fied furniture a sketch of the pencil Thayer-Coggin furnished actual di- sketch which included the working well as a design, to be the exterior material specified piece mensions of the edge so that the veneer designed was used. The chair of the veneer edges and the plywood bе flush with the would it is thin. sharp veneer is because be sanded down. Chrome would However, A sharp edges. to have designed chair was not defect, defect, and design not a manufacturing is a sharp edge Thayer-Coggin. Nothing prevented responsibility would be the number a welt the bottom of protective along placement have similar tub-chairs in 1183. Plastic been added to edge guards years. the last few testi- Ray plant supervisor Thayer-Coggin,
Luther at Cooper, pro- of an is to purpose edge guard fied in his deposition injury. furniture rather than to Model prevent tect the metal on sanded, have the flush and designed edges number was always will “a edges. sharp edge not to have There little sharp you’re with metal in this thickness.” A any dealing sharp time a defect. edge manufacturing deposition
Plaintiff testifiеd his that he cut his bare foot of the chair where base meets edge on the “outside bottom sides,” resulting required surgery in severe lacerations which Plaintiff later examined the chair and hospitalization. deter- you “razor if edge sharp, sharp enough mined that was across your finger edge were to rub chair, the bottom outside your you finger.” would shave skin off The chrome was edge sharp way flush with the but all the plywood degrees around the 360 of the tub. evidence,
We now whether the forecast of viewed in consider favorable to light plaintiff, genuine most raised issues of ma- fact with to the elements of each claim as respect terial defined law. by Florida
[5] Under Florida
law,
the elements
(1)
ex
duty
istence of a
recognized by law requiring the defendant to
conform to a certain standаrd of conduct for
protection
(2)
others,
(3)
including
plaintiff;
duty;
breach of that
in
jury
as a proximate
sustained
cause of the breach. Tieder v. Lit
(Fla.
tle,
1987),
denied,
So.
2d
Dist.
App.
Ct.
review
(Fla. 1987);
(Fla.
2d
So.
Clark v. Boeing
Courts should be cautious in granting judgment Co., Disney cases. McCabe v. Walt negligence 814 World 350 So. 2d (Fla. 1977). Dist. App. Ct. Where questions negligence are close, any always doubt should be resolved in jury favor a trial. by If the Id. circumstances established susceptible record are of a reasonable inference which recovery would allow and also of an capable equally reasonable inference to the contrary, jury a America, is Voelker presented. v. Combined Ins. Co. of (Fla. 1954). So. 2d In favorable light plaintiff, most the record a presents issue of material fact as to genuine whether defendants breached duty care reasonable the use of specifying chrome veneer, which is a sharp known to have but in- edge, failing to edge some type guard clude in the chair design. also presents genuine record issue of material fact as cause. Defendants proximate make much of the distinction be- and manufacturing
tween
defects
defects. A design defect
Resign
hazard
injury-producing
accompanying
prod-
is an
normal use of a
intentionally
design.
that was
according
uct
manufactured
Cas-
SUPREME COURT
IN THE
1981).
(Fla.
Co.,
A
App.
Dist.
Ct.
Maytag
v.
396 So. 2d
sisi
hand,
defect,
a miscar-
caused
the other
manufacturing
an unintended
produces
manufacturing process
in the
riage
on chrome
edge
sharp
Id.
contend
result.
Defendants
con-
in this case
manufacturing defect and
solely
veneer
Thayer-Coggin.
on the
intervening negligence
part
stituted
party
negligent
a third
but
defendant and
Where both
proximate
injury,
is the sole
cause
party’s
the third
Pinero,
v.
Dе la Concha
recover from defendant.
cannot
(Fla.
(Fla.
dismissed,
appeal
109 So.
104 So. 2d
1959);
Bros.
474 So. 2d
Development
& Pearce v. Kroh
Pearce
(Fla.
App.
Dist.
Ct.
foreseeable,
However,
it
reasonably
if an
cause is
intervening
liability.
Bryant,
Rupp
from all
insulate a defendant
cannot
(Fla. 1982);
see,
Goode v. Walt
World
e.g.,
Disney
So. 2d 658
(Fla.
denied,
1982), review
436 So.
App.
Proximate cause is
an issue for
determination
generally
it is so
reasonable men
not differ. Helman
unless
clear that
could
(Fla. 1977).
Co.,
v.
Coast Line R.
349 So. 2d
We
Seaboard
used,
of the
of the
coupled
believe that evidence
nature
material
acknowledgment
individual
with the
defendant’s
manufac-
lapses to
quality,
jury
turer’s occasional
raised a
dangerously sharp edges
reasonably
whether
were a
foreseeable
design
edge guard.
a
consequence
lacking
[6]
Similarly
we
find
that the forecast
evidence was sufficient
liability.
to
on the elements of strict
A
jury questions
plain
raise
to
strictly
hold a defendant
liable in a
liabili-
seeking
tiff
(1)
ty case must establish:
the defendant’s
relationship
(2)
product
question;
the defective condition of
product;
(3) the
existence of
causal connection between the product’s con
dition
injuries.
West
Tractor Com
Caterpillar
(Fla. 1976);
Co.,
We nonetheless find
forecast of evidence was suffi-
cient
support
an inference in plaintiffs
favor. Mere lapse of
time between the
purchase
the accident does not foreclose lia-
bility as a matter of law. Marrillia v. Lyn
Boat Company,
Craft
(Fla.
1973).
With defendants’ affirmative we note *15 contributory negligence does not a bar constitute to strict SUPREME COURT IN THE Florida, negligence a comparative in liability or actions negligence n.26; Martinez 396 So. 2d v. Maytag state. Cassisi (Fla. 1980). App. 2d 878 Ct. 382 So. Dist. Clark Equipment of the manu- already intervening negligence We addressed have present not ade- record does repose. facturer and statutes we the other defеnses. judge information upon quate of this that defendants purpose opinion we for the Therefore find inability affirm- to surmount plaintiffs have not demonstrated ative defenses.
[7] ing the Lastly we consider the breach of strict liability cause action, the Florida warranty claims. Supreme By creat Court 336 So. 2d abolished Company, Tractor in West Caterpillar liability warranty cases cause of action implied 520 So. Kramer Piper Corp., where no exists. privity Aircraft 1988). (Fla. here, Where, injured has been 2d 37 relationship defective but has no contractual allegedly defendants, if may pursue he strict cause of action but, warranty the vehicle of privity, implied absent appropriate Id; v. Viasyn no available to him. Evaluation longer Affiliates for (Fla. Dist. Ct. So. Thus, summary judgment properly granted we hold рlaintiffs claims for breach of war- implied for defendants as ranty merchantability implied warranty and breach of of fit- but was particular purpose inappropriate ness for liability. for and strict claims Appeals The result The decision of the Court of is af- is: implied to the claims for firmed different reasons as breach of warranty. liability, for negligence As to the claims and strict Appeals is reversed and the cause re- decision Court Court, Forsyth to that remand to the Superior manded court for not County, opinion. inconsistent with this proceedings further part, Reversed and remanded modified and affirmed part. Webb dissenting.
Justice In majority. I from the determining dissent the choice of the statute of application repose, majority for the relies on
State v. Locklear
previоus statements of this Court that statutes of repose are sub-
stantive
rights.
definitions of
Lamb Wedgewood
South Corp.,
308 N.C.
Whatever differences we find in statutes of limitation and statutes of repose, purpose of both of them bar claims which are not filed within certain majority times. The why not said there should be a different treatment them be- cause we call one statute substantive and procedural. the other I why see we do not should. The law of the forum when applies Henderson, statute of pled. limitations is Sayer v. 225 N.C. (1945). By S.E. 2d 875 a different using choice of law for a statute I believe repose, giving we are different treаtment statutes adopted were the same I purpose. do not believe we do should so.
I agree opinion with the written Parker Judge for the majority says Appeals. Court that the Court of Appeals reaching its decision “relied on ‘public policy’ exception.” The only time the Court of Appeals public policy mentioned was in Court, an opinion from of this quoting v. Flannery, Tieffenbrun (1930), 198 N.C. S.E. A.L.R. 210 which held that although time limitation on the wrongful death action had action, been held precedent a condition the limitation applied also to an action in this brought state when the action was based aon death that occurred in Florida. comes Tieffenbrun governing close to this case.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRANTLEY LOCKLEAR
No. 492A87 (Filed 1988) 2 June investigator private 31— 1. Constitutional Law error —denied—no murder — prosecution degree court trial did not err for first murder de- nying investigator appointment defendant’s motion for the where defend-