 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. Compex International Co.12/23/2004
ale of the product, it can be extended beyond those persons in privity of contract only by some provision of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as adopted in Kentucky. Thus, breach of warranty is not a viable theory in a personal injury claim for a product sold in a defective condition unless there is privity of contract, except in limited circumstances specified in the UCC.
However, these cases also recognize KRS 355.2-318, which provides:
A seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person who is in the family or household of his buyer or who is a guest in his home if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty. A seller may not exclude or limit the operation of this section.
In Real Estate Marketing, Inc. v. Franz, and Williams v. Fulmer, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that this exception to the privity requirement for breach of warranty cannot be extended beyond its clear terms. In this case, however, the clear language of KRS 355.2-318 extends an implied warranty to household guests of the buyers, such as the Taylors. Under the facts as alleged in the complaint, the Taylors' warranty claim is not barred and the trial court erred by dismissing it.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Bell Circuit Court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the Taylors' warranty claim.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|