holding that employees may “stand in the shoes of the employer” and be considered “in privity to the vendor-manufacturer with respect to the implied warranties of fitness for use and of merchantable quality”
How later courts described this case
- holding that employees may “stand in the shoes of the employer” and be considered “in privity to the vendor-manufacturer with respect to the implied warranties of fitness for use and of merchantable quality”
- “Thus, none of these five cases provides clear support for the general proposition for which they were cited: that privity is not required where the item sold was inherently dangerous.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TRAYNOR, J.
I concur in the judgment for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinions in Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 461-468 [ 150 P.2d 436 ] and Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co., 33 Cal.2d 514, 523-533 [ 203 P.2d 522 ].