Moss, et al. v. Batesville Casket Co., Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00372-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-27-2006 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose - Implied warranty for merchantability for an ordinary purpose - Strict products liability - Section 11-1-63(a) - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Neligence Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: COBB, P.J., DIAZ AND GRAVES, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-28-2004 Appealed from: SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motions for Summary Judgment Case Number: 2001-CV-337-SC-C |
|
| Note: | Nature of the Case: Breach of implied warranty of merchantability, Breach of implied warranty of fitness, Strict products liability, Intentional infliction of emotional distress | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SUSAN R. MOSS, TRACY M. NICHOLS, KENNY R.
MOSS AND RORY A. GARCIA |
T. JACKSON LYONS, EVELYN TATUM PORTIE |
||
| Appellee: | BATESVILLE CASKET COMPANY, INC. AND OTT & LEE FUNERAL HOME | GEORGE MARTIN STREET, JR., JAMES D. HOLLAND, J. WADE SWEAT |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose - Implied warranty for merchantability for an ordinary purpose - Strict products liability - Section 11-1-63(a) - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Neligence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Susan Moss, Tracy Nichols, Kenny Moss, and Rory Garcia originally filed suit on December 7, 2001, against Ott & Lee Funeral Home and Batesville Casket Company, Inc., alleging claims of breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness, strict products liability, negligence, tortious interference with a dead body, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages. Both Ott & Lee and Batesville filed motions for summary judgment. On October 4, 2004, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On December 28, 2004, the trial court found no genuine issues of material fact existed and issued two separate orders granting each of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment as a matter of law in separate opinions. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose Before the plaintiffs selected a wooden casket for their mother, the employees of Ott & Lee informed the plaintiffs that a wooden casket could not be sealed like a metal casket. The plaintiffs’ mother was buried on March 9, 1999. Two and a half years later, believing that a medical malpractice claim may have existed against the decedent’s medical care providers, the plaintiffs had the decedent’s body exhumed for an autopsy. When the casket was exhumed, the plaintiffs observed visible cracks and separation in the casket. As the casket was removed, it began to dismantle. The plaintiffs argue that they were told by Ott & Lee that the casket was “top of the line.” In order to recover under the theory of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, a plaintiff must present evidence sufficient for the jury to find the seller at the time of the contracting had reason to know the particular purpose for which the goods were required; the reliance by the plaintiff as buyer upon the skill or judgment of the seller to select suitable goods, and the goods were unfit for the particular purpose. The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does not arise unless there is reliance on the seller by the buyer, and the seller selects goods which are unfit for the particular purpose. The plaintiffs’ depositions, which were provided to the trial court on motion for summary judgment, demonstrate that the plaintiffs purchased the wooden casket for its aesthetic value. Nothing in the record provides that the plaintiffs identified any particular purpose to the defendants when the casket was selected. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the plaintiffs sought to preserve their mother’s remains for some unspecified, indefinite period of time in the wooden casket, the record is completely devoid of any proof that the body had been damaged in any way by the alleged problems with the casket. As such, the burial had preserved the remains until the plaintiffs had their mother’s remains unearthed and the autopsy performed. Issue 2: Implied warranty for merchantability for an ordinary purpose The plaintiffs argue that, as reasonable consumers, they expected the casket to preserve the remains for an indefinite period of time. The trial court found that the ordinary purpose for which the casket was designed ceased once the pall bearers bore the casket from the hearse to the grave site for burial. The record does not indicate that the plaintiffs ever stated a specified period of time that they, as a reasonable customer, would have reasonably expected the wooden casket to last. The record also fails to demonstrate that the remains were damaged in any way from the alleged cracks and separation when the casket and body were exhumed. Issue 3: Strict products liability In order to prevail in a products liability case, the plaintiff must prove not only a defect in the product, but also that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiffs offered an expert in wood rot, decay, and degradation who did not find any problem with the physical and mechanical properties of the wood. He further stated that decay is a natural process in wood even though wood is a proper material to use to manufacture a casket. He determined that the casket had separated at the glued joints based on poor adhesive bonds where the cherry wood boards had been glued together to form the casket. The expert testified in his deposition that he did not hold himself out as an expert in the field of adhesives. Further, he did not perform any studies on the specific adhesives involved in this case. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under M.R.E. 702 in disregarding the expert’s opinion as to the adhesive. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to present any expert at the motion for summary judgment to demonstrate that there was a defect in the product, a deviation from the manufacturer’s specifications, or a defective design. It is apparent that the plaintiffs were aware that the wood casket would not seal. The plaintiffs even admitted that Ott & Lee informed them that a wooden casket would not seal when the cherry wood casket was selected. As such, this characteristic of a wooden casket was open and obvious to the plaintiffs at the time the casket was selected. The language of section 11-1-63(a) is clear that in order for the manufacturer or seller to be liable the requirements specified in subsections (a)(i)-(iii) shall be proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the alleged defective condition of the casket resulted in an unreasonably dangerous condition to the user or consumer and that the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the casket proximately resulted in any damage as required under the Products Liability Act. Issue 4: Negligence With regard to their negligence claims, the plaintiffs fail to present any new discussion or claim that does not relate back to the warranty claims or the products liability claim which have previously been determined to be legally insufficient to survive summary judgment. There was no evidence of any damage to the remains or any breach to support a negligence claim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
