 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stearman v. Homes1/31/2000
Appeals from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Byron K. McMillan, Judge. (Retired judge of the Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.) Judgment affirmed as modified.
Defendant Centex Homes appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Jeffrey and Linda Stearman in a strict liability action arising out of defendant's defective construction of the foundation of plaintiffs' tract home, resulting in severe slab movement and deformation. The defects caused extensive cracks throughout the interior and exterior surfaces of the home.
The issue is not whether a defendant builder of mass produced housing may be held strictly liable for construction defects. The affirmative answer to that question is firmly established in California cases beginning 30 years ago with Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224. (See, inter alia, Fleck v. Bollinger Home Corp. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 926; Alcal Roofing & Insulation v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1121; Becker v. McMillin Construction Co. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1493; Orndorff v. Christiana Community Builders (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 683; GEM Developers v. Hallcraft Homes of San Diego, Inc. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 419; Gentry Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 177; Oliver v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 86; Huang v. Garner (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 404; Del Mar Beach Club Owners Assn. v. Imperial Contracting Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 898; Raven's Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co. (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 783; Stuart v. Crestview Mut. Water Co. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 802; and Avner v. Longridge Estates (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 607.)
Rather, the question is whether a plaintiff can recover under strict liability when a defect in one component part of a house causes injury to other component parts of the house, but not to persons or property apart from the structure. Defendant asserts such damage constitutes nothing more than "injury to the product itself," a loss for which strict liability compensation is barred by the economic loss rule of Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 9. It argues damage to a defective product itself is simply the product's failure to function properly, for which the only remedy lies in a warranty action through which the disappointed buyer can seek to recoup the benefit of its bargain.
Defendant contends the precise issue here has not been directly decided in California, but to the extent Seely and other appellate courts of this state have touched upon it, they have reached the wrong conclusion, or are poorly reasoned, inapt and non-binding. We are invited to depart from our own longstanding judicial tradition and, in its place, adopt "the strong majority rule" of other jurisdictions which, according to defendant, have interpreted Seely correctly and would prohibit strict liability recovery under the facts of this case.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert our own courts have considered the economic loss rule in construction and non-construction cases alike, and have uniformly allowed recovery of strict liability damages where, as here, a defect has caused physical damage to the property. They further note a number of other states have applied strict liability to mass-produced housing defects, and thus California is not the "odd-ball" defendant purports it to be. (Plaintiffs have also filed a cross-appeal to which we will turn after concluding our discussion of the appeal.)
Amici curiae expand upon the positions of both parties. From divergent viewpoints, they trace the development of the strict liability doctrine in th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|