explaining that the “implied duty of good Order Page 3 of 5 22-CV-03928 Kingsbury Companies, LLC v. Winton Goodrich et al and workmanlike performance has been applied . . . as an affirmative defense . . . or offensively . . . to collect damages proximately caused by unskillful and deficient work”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the “implied duty of good Order Page 3 of 5 22-CV-03928 Kingsbury Companies, LLC v. Winton Goodrich et al and workmanlike performance has been applied . . . as an affirmative defense . . . or offensively . . . to collect damages proximately caused by unskillful and deficient work”
- holding “breach of the implied warranty was plainly within the common knowledge of laymen and did not require expert testimony” because “jurors had sufficient knowledge to find that the failure to connect a washing machine drain would not be considered good and workmanlike”
- holding the implied warranty to repair or modify existing tangible goods or property in a good and workmanlike manner may not be waived and overruling Robichaux "[t]o the extent that it conflicts with this opinion"
- upholding finding of breach of implied warranty when the plaintiffs discovered that the sink in their prefabricated home had not been connected to the drain in one of the interior walls, resulting in a continual leak that caused damage to the home, and attempted repairs by the seller caused additional damages
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAMPBELL, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the Court in this cause. However, the remedy created by the majority goes far beyond that which is required by the facts of this case and the arguments submitted by Barnes. I am not prepared to hold, under the guise of public policy, that all service providers will be strictly liable for breach of an implied warranty to render services in a good and workmanlike manner. Our holding should only extend to the manufacturer of a product who purports to remedy a defect that existed at the time the product was sold to the consumer.
Because I oppose the creation of an implied warranty applicable to all services, I am also necessarily opposed to the dicta in the Court’s opinion which purports to disallow parties to disclaim liability under such an all-encompassing implied warranty. This is not raised by point of error and is not in this case. I would not impair the rights of parties to contract.
My concurring opinion dated June 17, 1987 is withdrawn.
WALLACE, J., joins in this concurring opinion.