 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ford Motor Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co.9/10/2001
had in mind for the chassis cab and no evidence that General Accident's insured sought to use the vehicle for other than one of its ordinary purposes.
The Court of Special Appeals reached a similar conclusion on similar reasoning in Bond v. NIBCO, 96 Md. App. 127, 623 A.2d 731 (1993), distinguishing between the ordinary and particular purpose of a product, i.e. faucets. In Bond, the plaintiff, a plumber, purchased faucets, manufactured by the defendant, from a retailer/manufacturer. Bond, 96 Md. App. at 131, 623 A.2d at 733. The plaintiff installed the faucets in residential townhouses. The faucets subsequently leaked. The plumber sued the defendant alleging, in part, that the manufacturer was liable for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Id. The Court of Special Appeals, in affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, held that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness because
[plaintiff] nowhere alleged that he bought the faucets for a "particular purpose" that in any way differed from the "ordinary purpose" for which these faucets might be used, let alone that [defendant], which manufactured but did not sell these faucets to him, knew of this "particular purpose." Accordingly, [plaintiff's] complaint fails to state a claim for breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose, and so judgment was properly entered for [defendant] on this claim. Bond, 96 Md. App. at 137-38, 623 A.2d at 733.
We conclude that there is no basis in law or fact to find any particular purpose in the present case, let alone that Petitioner had knowledge of such a purpose on Montrose's part. Because of this determination, we do not need to consider the remaining elements of ยง 2- 315. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is inapplicable to the present case. Moreover, the chassis cab was being used for its ordinary purpose, rather than a particular purpose.
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Special Appeals and remand the case with direction to affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY; COSTS
IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|