“The Uniform Commercial' Code ... is inapplicable to a tort action alleging a breach of implied warranty.”
How later courts described this case
- “The Uniform Commercial' Code ... is inapplicable to a tort action alleging a breach of implied warranty.”
- "Regardless of whether the tortious conduct is labeled a breach of warranty or whether the claim is founded on strict liability in tort, it seems that plaintiff must basically prove [the same ele ments]”
- electricity in overhead transmission wire, which was not metered and delivered, not considered “goods” under Michigan UCC for purposes of wrongful death action
- “we choose to follow California’s example and hold the power company to the ‘reasonable man’ standard of care rather than impose liability based upon the maintenance of an ultra-hazardous activity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Bronson, J.,
(concurring). Due to the scope of Judge Allen’s opinion, I feel that I must emphasize that I agree only with his conclusions on the issues which have to be decided in this particular case. Specifically, I agree that the trial judge properly granted a partial summary judgment because:
(1) The doctrine of "abnormally dangerous activities or conditions” does not apply here, so that plaintiff cannot claim strict liability on that basis; and
(2) Defendant’s product had not left its control, making Michigan’s products liability doctrine (whether termed "strict liability”, "implied warranty in tort”, or "products liability”) inapplicable here.
I agree with Judge Allen’s conclusion that plaintiffs only cause of action against Detroit Edison for her decedent’s injuries must be based upon Edison’s negligence, and with his analysis of the jury instructions on the negligence claim.