Earlier we discussed the denial of an attempted class certification in South Carolina against Pella Windows. Pella Article I have pulled the opinion from Judge David Norton and am posting this her…
A federal judge in South Carolina on Sept. 26 awarded summary judgment to Pella Corp. on a man’s breach of express warranty claim, ruling that replacement windows the company installed to remedy al…
Source: Pella Prevails in SC
A federal judge in South Carolina on Sept. 26 awarded summary judgment to Pella Corp. on a man’s breach of express warranty claim, ruling that replacement windows the company installed to remedy allegedly defective ones did not extend the 10-year limited warranty (In re: Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2514, Case No. 14-mn-0000, John Romig Jr., et al. v. Pella Corporation, No. 14-cv-00433, D. S.C.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131282).
In light of last week’s discussion regarding Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady, I thought it fitting to clarify current SC precedent on the issue of strict liability and contracts for services. A link to that article is here.
In South Carolina, strict liability applies only to sales of products and not to the provision of services. Fields v. J. Haynes Waters Builders, 376 S.C. 545, 658 S.E.2d 80 (2008) (builder, as general contractor for construction of home, provided services was not subject to strict liability for damage from installation of defective stucco siding that allowed moisture intrusion).
South Carolina has a Defective Products Act which states that one who sells any product in a defective condition, which is unreasonably dangerous to the user, or consumer, or to his or her property, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his or her property, if the following apply:
A. the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product
B. it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
The application of strict liability is illustrated as it is actionable regardless of whether (a) The seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) The user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. S.C. Code Ann. Section 15-73-10; see also S.C. Jurisprudence Products Liability § 18.
In Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Company, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B251933 (December 22, 2015), the Court of Appeals has held for the first time that a contractor who installed drywall using a joint compound – both of which contained asbestos – which the contractor was not aware of – could be found liable for strict products liability. The case’s subject matter can be simplified to the following scenario. During the 1970’s a commercial building was remodeled by E.F. Brady. Part of the remodeling project included drywall which was bid by Brady with a one percent (1%) built in adjustment for unknown material price fluctuations. Evidence supported Brady’s contention that it was not a seller of any asbestos containing product as its contract price also clearly set forth 75% to labor and 25% for materials with no mark up or profit other than the 1% floating adjustment.
The Plaintiff, Hernandezcueva, worked at the remodeled facility where his duties included cleaning up drywall debris. While performing those duties he inhaled dust. In or about 2011, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma which his medical experts attributed to his exposure to asbestos-containing products installed by E.F. Brady.
At trial, the court found that Brady could not be found liable on a strict products liability theory of liability. The Plaintiff appealed and California’s Court of Appeals reversed based on some fairly creative reasoning.
The Court of Appeals decision appeared to base its reversal on a rationale that would be considered favorable to Brady. The decision makes a distinction between parties whose primary objective involves the sale of a product (manufacturers, distributors, etc) in which case strict products liability applies; and service providers who are identifiable by the fact a “service aspect predominates and any product sale is merely incidental to the provision of the service…..” In the latter distinction, strict liability would not apply based on traditional rationale and reasoning.
The Court reaches its decision in a manner resembling a storyline which dove tails. Notwithstanding the fact that Brady made profits from labor and not materials, the Court reasoned that Brady placed large quantities of products in the stream of commerce.
The court further reasoned that even though Brady paid sales tax on the materials in a manner such resembling an end user rather than supplier, its close participatory connection to the products caused Brady to become a quasi supplier and significant factor leading to the exposure of harmful materials.
Contractors providing services have always been considered outside the stream of commerce of products supplied incidentally to services. The “primary objective or essence of the transaction” between a customer and a contractor is the provision of services, not obtaining a product, and California courts have long recognized that this fact places contractors outside the stream of commerce of products they provide under their contracts. (E.g., Monte Vista Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1681 [tiling subcontractor not strictly liable for defective soap dish].
At the risk of editorializing, I am going to provide some editorial opinion. The decision, when read verbatim, overrules previous notions that a contractor or laborer is free from liability for defective products so long as the service provider abided by instructions and architectural plans. While the facts leading to this decision involved a very controversial product (asbestos), there is no limiting or qualifying language such that we are left with a broad net which might subject the lowest tier subcontractor or handyman liable for installing a product which is later deemed to be defective. The decision, for example, leaves open the possibility that a residential framing contractor might face strict liability for the installation of properly specified windows which are later found to be defective.
As this case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, time will tell if the Court of Appeals sweeping decision holds.
The the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has finally sent its comprehensive rule governing worker exposure to silica dust to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final review.
A proposed rule until now, the silica guidelines’ pending approval by OSHA will make them law.
Silicosis is the lung disease the rule is trying to curtail. While neither I or anyone I know has ever heard of it, silicosis can be fatal. Evidence suggests that the disease is rare, however, and fatalities have declined since its identification in 1968.
The OSHA guidelines would affect all trades which involve sand blasting, rock drilling or ceramic and glass manufacturing. From a construction industry viewpoint, the silica rule certainly applies to folks working in almost any capacity with concrete and masonry. The rule might also affect those in the business of manufacturing or applying drywall and other synthetic products such as siding materials.
In the grand picture, those in the field will not be overly burdened as silica dust control measures boil down to wearing a half-face respirator and using water or vacuums to dampen dust exposure. Silica dust particles are not super fine like asbestos so it is believed that minimal protection (paper mask) is adequate.
The largest significance will be felt administratively. OSHA guidelines require documentation, reporting, logs, control readings, and further documentation. This burden will serve to keep construction safety and legal departments at the office longer starting in 2017 when the rule is expected to be in effect.