Marcella Sparks v. Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc., et al.; Cindi Howard, Marion Howard, and Joshua Taylor v. Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/17/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2009 1071708 Marcella Sparks v. T o t a l Body E s s e n t i a l N u t r i t i o n , C i n d i Howard, M a r i o n Inc., e t a l . Howard, and J o s h u a Taylor v. T o t a l Body E s s e n t i a l N u t r i t i o n , Certified Inc., e t a l . Question from the U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f Alabama (CV-08-PT-1010-E and CV-08-PT-1012-E ) LYONS, Justice. Court f o r 1071708 These cases are from the District United of b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on States District various Howard, and and times Marcella Joshua Formula" retailer from in of supplement from containers. St. the John's N u t r i t i o n . Body physical chromium c o n t a i n e d In two Sparks, dietary Cindi the Northern Body John's Formula manufacturer in same c o n d i t i o n The consumers they as allege suffered r e s u l t i n g from high i n the separate i t was that serious as "the "Total health-food Nutrition and Total Marion as a is received sealed, John's N u t r i t i o n s o l d to known Nutrition, St. 1 Howard, referred supplement John's Alabama. the Formula, injuries a Total consumers i n the Total for History (collectively St. Oxford, seller retail Procedural Taylor consumers") purchased Body Court question Alabama. Facts At a certified a the prepackaged Body Formula received by to St. after ingesting and permanent l e v e l s of selenium and supplement. actions filed 2 on April 28, 2008, the The c o n s u m e r s s t a t e t h a t S t . J o h n ' s N u t r i t i o n " a p p a r e n t l y a sole p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . " C o n s u m e r s ' b r i e f , a t 1. 1 is S p a r k s was t h e p l a i n t i f f i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n ( C V - 0 8 - P T 1 0 1 0 - E ) , and C i n d i Howard, M a r i o n Howard, and T a y l o r were t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n the second a c t i o n (CV-08-PT-1012-E). 2 2 1071708 consumers sued Total Body TexAmerican Food B l e n d i n g , St. John's N u t r i t i o n claims under Doctrine defective failure and to Nutrition, Inc.; Wright Enrichment, i n the Calhoun t h e Alabama ("AEMLD") Essential Extended Circuit warn, asserting Manufacturer's Liability dangerous negligence, I n c . ; and Court, f o r the manufacture unreasonably Inc.; and/or sale product, negligent of a negligent and/or reckless marketing, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and f o ra p a r t i c u l a r breach of the implied warranty of f i t n e s s purpose, and a s s e r t i n g TexAmerican Food federal district that the diversity the Blending court amount jurisdictional a claim named controversy t h e two June existed defendant district because with an 6, actions exceeded of the federal jurisdiction only removed On p u r s u a n t t o 28 U.S.C. § 1 3 3 2 , in limit of fraud. to the asserting the threshold court and S t . John's Alabama Fraudulent possibility against that had been joinder fraudulently i s established the p l a i n t i f f the resident can prove residence for s e e 28 joined. "when there a cause (non-diverse) defendant." 3 that Nutrition, purposes of determining f e d e r a l d i v e r s i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n , U.S.C. § 1 3 3 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) , 2008, of Triggs i s no action v. John 1071708 Crump Toyota, "'If there that the the Inc., complaint states defendants, joinder was proper Triggs, 154 F.3d F.2d 1433, have a of the 154 (quoting The by clear Washington "the F.3d 1293, On court 1297 J u l y 2, to court." (11th St. two d e n y any Florence 2008, the remand the arguing that Ins. state not of fraudulent stating a to 454 joinder court be valid legitimate." must establish evidence. F.3d 1278, 1281 is established must dismiss m o t i o n to remand the v. the 709 convincing Co., federal Cir. court.'" removing party Nat'l of that allegedly and one p l a i n t i f f need "The joinder When f r a u d u l e n t party, state the 1287. n o n - d i v e r s e d e f e n d a n t and to for any find Amoco O i l Co., have a p o s s i b i l i t y order would the to the 1 998 ) . must f i n d C o k e r v. against joinder removing case C i r . 1993)). at Cir. a state court federal court (11th in F.3d v. that (11th. a cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t the 1287 1287 case C i r . 2006). back 1284 , remand the need o n l y action fraudulent (11th at winning Henderson and 1440-41 d e f e n d a n t ; he Triggs, F.3d i s even a p o s s i b i l i t y resident cause 154 Crescent Res., by the matter LLC, 484 2007). c o n s u m e r s moved t h e actions to the J o h n ' s N u t r i t i o n was 4 federal district Calhoun C i r c u i t not fraudulently Court, joined 1071708 so as to defeat citizenship. jurisdiction The consumers TexAmerican Food B l e n d i n g convincing evidence causes action of merchantability stated against container against warranties purpose the not their motion of that existed of the no possibility implied and that warranties Food B l e n d i n g possibly establish merchantability i t R e l y i n g upon t h e for and argued, the conduct breach fitness there of be sealed- argued that causes of of the the action implied for a particular existed of S t . John's no causal Nutrition and allegedly defective product. September 8, a hearing, 2008, Food Blending that the consumers' $75,000. that the there Nutrition between Following of that TexAmerican because, relationship in diversity had f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h by c l e a r S t . John's N u t r i t i o n . John's of on and f i t n e s s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e c o u l d could St. argued for breach doctrine, consumers based had the entered proven an by claims However, the federal order district finding that a preponderance of court, TexAmerican the evidence exceeded the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l federal district court i t i s not c l e a r under Alabama law whether c l a i m s breach of the implied warranties 5 on amount concluded alleging of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y and 1071708 fitness the f o r a p a r t i c u l a r purpose sealed-container against S t . John's warranties purpose doctrine, then defendant i n the Therefore, Ala. R. doctrine. consumers' and f i t n e s s as a m a t t e r o f l a w by t h e the joinder actions the federal A p p . P., I f the to the defense of N u t r i t i o n a l l e g i n g breach of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y are barred are subject of would district certified S t . John's be of the implied for a particular sealed-container Nutrition considered court, as a fraudulent. pursuant the following claims to Rule question to 18, this Court: "Whether, under Alabama's U n i f o r m Commercial C o d e , a r e t a i l s e l l e r who h a s p u r c h a s e d g o o d s f r o m a reputable manufacturer i n enclosed, pre-packaged and s e a l e d c o n t a i n e r s , w i t h a l l e g e d imperfections that cannot be discovered by the exercise of reasonable c a r e by t h e s e l l e r , c a n be h e l d liable f o r any a l l e g e d i m p e r f e c t i o n s i n t h e p r o d u c t under an implied warranty of merchantability and o r f i t n e s s f o rp a r t i c u l a r purpose; or whether, i n s t e a d , the UCC imposes strict liability upon a r e t a i l seller o f goods t h e r e b y eradicating the 'lack of proximate cause defense' p r o v i d e d t o r e t a i l s e l l e r s u n d e r t h e AEMLD, a s s e t f o r t h i n A t k i n s v . A m e r i c a n M o t o r s C o r p . , 335 S o . 2 d 134 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) . " The former United Circuit, i n the f i r s t adopted i n Amendment 1901 States case No. Court using 328, § of Appeals the c e r t i f i c a t i o n 6.02, A l a b a m a (now A r t . V I , § 1 4 0 , O f f . R e c o m p . ) , 6 f o r the F i f t h procedure Constitution stated: 1071708 " F i v e q u e s t i o n s were c e r t i f i e d b u t , f o l l o w i n g o u r u s u a l p r a c t i c e , we l e f t i t t o t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t t o f o r m u l a t e t h e i s s u e s . A s was t h e i r p r e r o g a t i v e , the Alabama C o u r t d i d j u s t t h a t and c o n s i d e r e d the basic issues rather than r e p l y i n g c a t e g o r i c a l l y to the c e r t i f i e d questions." Barnes F.2d v. A t l a n t i c & P a c i f i c 9 8 , 99 ( 5 t h C i r . 1976) Consistent question as with (footnote this by the f e d e r a l as "eradicating defense.'" However, Motors recognition Corp., of a defense from a defendant's product and i t s defective we district court i n Atkins So. 2d 134 i n connection with handling " i s n o t t o be Atkins, Finally, Alabama's Uniform Commercial establishing Ala. Code seller's attentive proximate 1975 breach the to prove of the product." equally to cause. proximate the See, ("Consequential include: the relation arising condition is v. of causal defective UCC") to proximate ( A l a . 1976), and n.4. refers noted injuries 143 the of condition were that 'lack t h e b u r d e n w h i c h r e s t s on t h e p l a i n t i f f damages note the of lack activities 53 0 the Court as 335 of America, omitted). prerogative, framed American with I n s . Co. liability" "strict cause Life ... 7 335 e.g., § confused that h i s of the So. 2d a t Code ("the plaintiff's damages Injury result the burden of 7-2-715(2)(b), resulting to person or from the property 1071708 proximately added)); ("In § 7-2-314, an a c t i o n necessary the resulting fact A l a . Code based that (emphasis 1975, O f f i c i a l on b r e a c h the warranty of warranty, was b r o k e n was t h e p r o x i m a t e (emphasis Comment, 5 13 i t i s of course cause and t h a t the breach of of the loss sustained." added)). therefore rephrase district of warranty." t o show n o t o n l y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e w a r r a n t y b u t the warranty We from any b r e a c h c o u r t as the q u e s t i o n posed by t h e f e d e r a l follows: " W h e t h e r , u n d e r t h e UCC, a r e t a i l s e l l e r who h a s purchased goods from a r e p u t a b l e m a n u f a c t u r e r i n enclosed, pre-packaged and s e a l e d c o n t a i n e r s , w i t h a l l e g e d i m p e r f e c t i o n s t h a t c a n n o t be d i s c o v e r e d b y the e x e r c i s e of r e a s o n a b l e care by t h e s e l l e r , can be h e l d l i a b l e f o r a n y a l l e g e d i m p e r f e c t i o n s i n t h e p r o d u c t u n d e r an i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y o f m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y and/or fitness for particular purpose; or, put a n o t h e r w a y , w h e t h e r t h e UCC i m p o s e s l i a b i l i t y u p o n a r e t a i l s e l l e r o f goods w i t h o u t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f the defense of 'lack of c a u s a l r e l a t i o n ' p r o v i d e d t o retail s e l l e r s u n d e r t h e AEMLD, a s s e t f o r t h i n A t k i n s v. American Motors Corp., 335 S o . 2 d 134 (Ala. 1976)." Only the consumers, TexAmerican Enrichment, I n c . , have filed briefs Food B l e n d i n g , and Wright with this Court. Discussion In 217, B r a d f o r d v. Moore 105 So. 2d 825 Brothers (1 9 5 8 ) , 8 Feed this & Grocery, Court 268 A l a . recognized the 1071708 availability asserting sellers the of the the breach arising under under 18-19, & Pacific Bradford v. Sales Act. claims retail The v i e w 3 that theory Bros. Feed K i r k l a n d v. by " t h e g r e a t that the Uniform See B r a d f o r d , Other courts reached as & Grocery, supra; Great (1936); Wilkes v. (1939); 194 A r k . 1 6 5 , 105 S.W.2d 1074 ( 1 9 3 7 ) , the a v a i l a b i l i t y common l a w . citing C o . , 23 T e n n . A p p . 5 5 0 , 134 S.W.2d 929 the minority rule supported justified A c t has been d e s c r i b e d T e a C o . , 2 3 3 A l a . 4 0 4 , 171 S o . 735 Green v. W i l s o n , expressing Sales S e e Sams v . E z y - W a y F o o d l i n e r C o . , 157 Me. Moore Memphis G r o c e r y the the Uniform to against warranties 170 A . 2 d 1 6 0 , 165 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , Atlantic as implied the Uniform the m i n o r i t y view. and of doctrine sealed-container defense survived the c r e a t i o n of implied warranties 10, sealed-container and d e s c r i b i n g t h e opposing weight of authority." of the sealed-container Sales as view Our Court d e f e n s e on A c t was d e c l a r a t i v e o f t h e 268 A l a . a t 2 2 0 , 105 S o . 2 d a t 8 2 7 . the opposite conclusion. S e e , e . g . , Sams v . E z y - W a y F o o d l i n e r C o . , 157 Me. a t 2 1 , 170 A . 2 d a t 166 ("The Uniform Sales Act i n establishing implied warranties S e c t i o n 15 e n d e d o u r ' s e a l e d c o n t a i n e r ' r u l e a t common The enacted. 3 Uniform S a l e s A c t was r e p e a l e d when See § 7 - 1 0 - 1 0 2 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . 9 under law."). t h e UCC was 1071708 We cannot, legislative law. however, exercise See O f f i c i a l view that the enactment o f t h e UCC i s merely declaratory Comment t o § 7 - 1 - 1 0 3 , A l a . as a o f t h e common Code 1 9 7 5 : "2. ... T h e r e f o r e , w h i l e p r i n c i p l e s o f common law a n d e q u i t y may s u p p l e m e n t p r o v i s i o n s of the U n i f o r m C o m m e r c i a l C o d e , t h e y may n o t b e u s e d t o supplant i t s provisions, or the purposes and p o l i c i e s those p r o v i s i o n s r e f l e c t , unless a s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n o f t h e U n i f o r m C o m m e r c i a l Code provides otherwise. In t h e absence of such a p r o v i s i o n , t h e Uniform Commercial Code preempts p r i n c i p l e s of common l a w a n d e q u i t y t h a t a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t with e i t h e r i t s p r o v i s i o n s o r i t s purposes and p o l i c i e s . " Section 7-2-314, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 7-2-316), a warranty that t h e goods shall be merchantable i s implied i n a contract f o r t h e i r sale i f t h e s e l l e r i s a merchant w i t h r e s p e c t t o goods o f that kind. Under t h i s s e c t i o n t h e s e r v i n g f o r v a l u e of food or drink t o b e c o n s u m e d e i t h e r on t h e premises or elsewhere i s a sale. "(2) such as: Goods trade t o be m e r c h a n t a b l e must be a t l e a s t "(a) Pass w i t h o u t objection i n the under t h e c o n t r a c t d e s c r i p t i o n ; and "(b) In t h e case o f f u n g i b l e goods, are of f a i r average q u a l i t y w i t h i n the d e s c r i p t i o n ; and for "(c) Are f i t f o r t h e o r d i n a r y purposes w h i c h such goods a r e used; and "(d) permitted Run, within the variations by t h e agreement, o f even k i n d , 10 1071708 q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y w i t h i n each among a l l u n i t s i n v o l v e d ; a n d u n i t and "(e) Are adequately contained, p a c k a g e d , a n d l a b e l e d a s t h e a g r e e m e n t may r e q u i r e ; and "(f) Conform to the promises or a f f i r m a t i o n s o f f a c t made o n t h e c o n t a i n e r or l a b e l i f any." No p r o v i s i o n an implied container the i s made f o r a d e f e n s e warranty doctrine. common-law forward. under carried care on warranty on forward; the part of of a breach of on the than permission Comment i s silent the s e l l e r We once a applied of to carry i t to that the sealed-container has been e s t a b l i s h e d . sealed- s i l e n c e as an a b r o g a t i o n t h e Comment analogous p r o v i s i o n s Tice, rather based i n the O f f i c i a l supports the proposition be 7-2-314 We v i e w t h i s defense, Nothing § to a claim § 7-2-314 d e f e n s e may on t h e e f f e c t o f breach of implied F l o r i d a law based o f t h e F l o r i d a UCC i n A m S o u t h B a n k v . 923 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 0 , 1 0 6 5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . We there stated: "Thus, Burtman [v. T e c h n i c a l C h e m i c a l s & P r o d u c t s , 724 S o . 2 d 672 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , ] s t a n d s f o r t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t d i s p l a c e m e n t o f a common-law r u l e u n d e r t h e UCC d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a n u n e q u i v o c a l , explicit reference t o t h e common-law r u l e being displaced. I f t h e UCC p r o v i s i o n c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e common l a w i n some w a y , t h e common l a w m u s t b e s a i d t o be d i s p l a c e d . " 11 1071708 (Emphasis added.) The rule i n Tice i s sound a n d due a p p l i e d t o t h e i d e n t i c a l p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A l a b a m a UCC with the adoption applicability o f t h e UCC. of Any o t h e r the p r i n c i p l e s of l i a b i l i t y the availability based arising sealed from defective a claim law that the simultaneous the sale of a product y e t has equally piston. defense component concealed Of c o u r s e , under claim package would of a be claim does n o t a r r i v e i n a parts, from view, to Indeed, to a recognition that the run counter e s t a b l i s h e d i n § 7-2-314. arrives i n a sealed dealing following r e s u l t would with package crankcase, common of the sealed-container on a p r o d u c t irreconcilable the t o be such that as might the l a t t e r o f b r e a c h o f an i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y w o u l d an engine contain a circumstance, unquestionably exist. Recognition of the sealed-container defense to claims of b r e a c h o f i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y u n d e r § 7-2-314 i s a p o l i c y m a t t e r best left t o t h e wisdom have r e s o l v e d the question of the l e g i s l a t u r e . by s t a t u t e i n favor Other states o f and against 4 S e e N.C. G e n . S t a t . A n n . § 9 9 B - 2 ( a ) ( 2 0 0 7 ) ("No p r o d u c t liability a c t i o n , e x c e p t an a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h o f e x p r e s s w a r r a n t y , s h a l l be commenced o r m a i n t a i n e d a g a i n s t any s e l l e r when t h e p r o d u c t was a c q u i r e d and s o l d by t h e s e l l e r i n a s e a l e d c o n t a i n e r o r when t h e p r o d u c t was a c q u i r e d a n d s o l d b y the seller under circumstances i n which the s e l l e r was 4 12 1071708 the availability The Ga. the treatment of this In App. 175, on other statute defense. instructive. especially 141 of 176, 233 Ga. store porch-swing sold a received from assembled the of hardware the App. identical P i e r c e v. S.E.2d 33, grounds M c D o n a l d , 213 758, sat failed. She issue 35 (1977), stated 445 S . E . 2 d 856 kit in a of i n i t , and sued the in Georgia Liberty Furniture as manufacturer swing, 5 in (1 9 9 4 ) , sealed the was Inc. The i t v. under the had customer i n j u r e d when a retailer by a furniture container swing. Co., superseded Alltrade, is piece Georgia a f f o r d e d no r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t t h e p r o d u c t i n s u c h a manner t h a t w o u l d have or s h o u l d have, i n the e x e r c i s e of reasonable care, r e v e a l e d the e x i s t e n c e of the c o n d i t i o n c o m p l a i n e d o f , u n l e s s t h e s e l l e r damaged or m i s h a n d l e d the product w h i l e i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n ; p r o v i d e d , t h a t the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l not a p p l y i f the m a n u f a c t u r e r of the p r o d u c t i s not s u b j e c t to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t s of this State or i f such manufacturer has been judicially declared insolvent."). S e e , e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(a)(2000) ("No 'product liability a c t i o n , ' as d e f i n e d i n § 2 9 - 2 8 - 1 0 2 ( 6 ) , s h a l l be c o m m e n c e d o r m a i n t a i n e d a g a i n s t a n y s e l l e r when t h e product i s acquired and s o l d by the seller in a sealed c o n t a i n e r a n d / o r when t h e p r o d u c t i s a c q u i r e d a n d s o l d b y t h e s e l l e r under circumstances i n w h i c h t h e s e l l e r i s a f f o r d e d no r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t the p r o d u c t i n such a manner which would or s h o u l d , i n the e x e r c i s e of r e a s o n a b l e care, reveal the existence of the defective condition. The p r o v i s i o n s of the f i r s t sentence of t h i s s u b s e c t i o n s h a l l not a p p l y t o : (1) A c t i o n s b a s e d u p o n a b r e a c h o f w a r r a n t y , express o r i m p l i e d , as d e f i n e d b y t i t l e 47, c h a p t e r 2 "). 5 13 1071708 version o f t h e UCC, § 2 - 2 1 4 , warranty of merchantability. favor of the retailer, concluded that there was f o r the ordinary unfit used and t h a t the implied Addressing court the Court was e v i d e n c e of breach Reversing the the r e t a i l e r warranty alleging a summary j u d g m e n t i n of Appeals of Georgia indicating that the swing f o rwhich such goods a r e purposes could of the implied be h e l d liable f o r breach of merchantability. sealed-container defense, the Georgia stated: " A l l o f t h e p o s t - U . C . C . a u t h o r i t y t h a t we h a v e studied indicates that the implied warranty of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y does n o t base any d i s t i n c t i o n s upon whether o r n o t goods a r e s o l d i n t h e i r original packages. S e e , e . g . , R. Anderson, 1 Uniform C o m m e r c i a l C o d e § 2 - 3 1 4 : 7 0 - 7 2 ( 2 d e d . 1970 ) ; G. Kock, Georgia Commercial Practice 40-41 (1964); White, 'Sales W a r r a n t i e s Under G e o r g i a ' s Uniform C o m m e r c i a l Code,' 1 Ga. S t a t e B a r J . 1 9 1 , 196-97 (1964). The p r o v i s i o n , i n fact, establishes a concept f o r r e t a i l e r s s i m i l a r t o that employed i n Code A n n . § 105-106, s u p r a , b y w h i c h m a n u f a c t u r e r s may b e h e l d s t r i c t l y l i a b l e f o r d e f e c t i v e products. " P r i o r t o t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e U.C.C., G e o r g i a adhered to the 'sealed container doctrine.' See Wood v . Hub M o t o r C o . , 110 G a . A p p . 1 0 1 ( 2 ) , 137 S . E . 2 d 674 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ; M a r o n e y v . M o n t g o m e r y W a r d & C o . , 7 2 G a . A p p . 4 8 5 , 34 S . E . 2 d 302 ( 1 9 4 5 ) ; B e l v . A d l e r , 63 G a . A p p . 4 7 3 ( 2 ) , 11 S . E . 2 d 495 ( 1 9 4 0 ) . According t o t h a t d o c t r i n e , no w a r r a n t y o f m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y applied as t o t h e r e t a i l e r o f goods i n their original packages, manufactured by reputable m a n u f a c t u r e r s , and i n g e n e r a l use i n the r e t a i l 14 1071708 trade. I n Wood v . Hub M o t o r C o . , s u p r a , h o w e v e r , i t was s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t e d t h a t t h i s l i n e o f d e c i s i o n s was b a s e d o n C o d e § 9 6 - 3 0 1 , w h i c h was r e p e a l e d w i t h t h e a d v e n t o f t h e U.C.C. i n G e o r g i a . "Since t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e U.C.C., several G e o r g i a cases have a p p l i e d t h e i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y o f m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y t o r e t a i l e r s o f goods s o l d i n s e a l e d packages. I n F e n d e r v . C o l o n i a l S t o r e s , I n c . , 138 Ga. App. 3 1 ( 1 ) ( A ) , 225 S.E.2d 691 (1976), the p l a i n t i f f took a s i x - p a c k carton of Coca-Cola from a shelf i n the supermarket. She t h e n p r o c e e d e d t o the c h e c k - o u t c o u n t e r , and p l a c e d t h e c a r t o n upon the c o u n t e r , a t which time a b o t t l e e x p l o d e d and injured her. She s u e d t h e s u p e r m a r k e t a n d s u f f e r e d a directed verdict. T h i s c o u r t h e l d , on p. 35, 225 S.E.2d p. 695, ' t h a t C o c a - C o l a b o t t l e s w h i c h w o u l d break under normal h a n d l i n g a r e not f i t f o r t h e o r d i n a r y u s e f o r w h i c h t h e y w e r e i n t e n d e d ... ' a n d thus t h e r e was a prima facie showing by t h e plaintiff o f a c l a i m u n d e r t h e U.C.C.'s i m p l i e d warranty of merchantability. T h e c a s e was r e m a n d e d for a jury t r i a l . " C h a f f i n v . A t l a n t a C o c a C o l a e t c . C o . , 127 G a . A p p . 6 1 9 ( 1 ) , 194 S . E . 2 d 5 1 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , a l s o d e a l s w i t h a b o t t l e d s o f t d r i n k w h i c h was n o t m e r c h a n t a b l e . I n t h i s c a s e t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s d a u g h t e r p u r c h a s e d a Coke from a vending machine a t a B i gApple g r o c e r y s t o r e . The p l a i n t i f f was i n j u r e d w h i l e d r i n k i n g a n i m p u r e s u b s t a n c e w h i c h was c o n t a i n e d i n t h e b o t t l e . The p l a i n t i f f s u e d t h e g r o c e r y s t o r e on s e v e r a l g r o u n d s , including that of breach o f t h e U.C.C. implied warranty of merchantability. The j u d g e r e f u s e d t o c h a r g e t h e j u r y as t o t h e i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y , and t h e j u r y found against the p l a i n t i f f . This court held that the t r i a l court erred i n i t s r e f u s a l to charge. "Numerous o t h e r c a s e s f r o m t h i s c o u r t , w h i l e n o t d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h goods s o l d i n o r i g i n a l c o n t a i n e r s , have used a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y a p p r o a c h t o h o l d r e t a i l e r s l i a b l e f o r damage, s u f f e r e d due t o a 15 1071708 breach of the U.C.C. implied warranty of merchantability. Redfern Meats v. H e r t z , 134 G a . A p p . 3 8 1 , 2 1 5 S . E . 2 d 10 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ( i m p r o p e r l y operating t r u c k ) ; R a y v . D e a s , 112 G a . A p p . 1 9 1 , 144 S . E . 2 d 468 (1965) ( f o r e i g n s u b s t a n c e i n h a m b u r g e r ) . " 141 Ga. A p p . a t 1 7 6 - 7 8 , 233 S.E.2d a t 35-36 (emphasis added). A subsequent enactment of t h e Georgia L e g i s l a t u r e has d e p r i v e d Pierce v. L i b e r t y Furniture Co. o f p r e c e d e n t i a l its treatment of a separate issue See Ga. Code A n n . § 5 1 - 1 - 1 1 . 1 value involving strict liability. (2006). When t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d t h e UCC, i t the Uniform The now r e p e a l e d Court t o be Bradford, Pierce Act. the basis as t h a t v. presented implied Furniture i s a A c t was a c k n o w l e d g e d by this a t 2 2 0 , 105 S o . 2 d a t 8 2 7 . On t h e same Furniture Co., Sales we Act with appellate conclude t h e UCC court i n that the eliminated defense. of the r e t a i l e r claim warranty, Code 1 9 7 5 . defense i n of the Uniform recourse Ala. repealed f o r the sealed-container sealed-container The Sales employed by t h e G e o r g i a Liberty replacement See § 7 - 1 0 - 1 0 2 ( 1 ) , Uniform 268 A l a . rationale the Sales as t o against under t h e circumstance i t ss e l l e r not absolution. See on i t s breach Pierce v. here of Liberty C o . , 141 G a . A p p . a t 1 7 8 , 2 3 3 S . E . 2 d a t 3 6 , s t a t i n g 16 1071708 the correct result under analogous provisions of the Georgia UCC: " I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t u n d e r t h i s h o l d i n g a retailer i s n o t a d e f e n s e l e s s p a r t y who w i l l be c a u g h t w i t h a m o n e t a r y l o s s due t o a n o t h e r ' s f a u l t y construction of products. The r e t a i l e r ' s r e m e d y i s an a c t i o n o v e r a g a i n s t h i s s e l l e r n o t e x c u l p a t i o n . The retailer may rely on the wholesaler or manufacturer to supply merchantable goods, and i f t h e y a r e n o t m e r c h a n t a b l e , t h e r e t a i l e r h a s t h e same c l a i m f o r b r e a c h o f w a r r a n t y as i t s customer had against i t . " We answer the c e r t i f i e d question i n the affirmative hold that the s e a l e d - c o n t a i n e r defense retail implied seller and i s not a v a i l a b l e to the of food products i n claims asserting a breach of warranty under t h e UCC. QUESTION ANSWERED. Cobb, C.J., and Woodall, Parker, and Murdock, J J . , concur. Stuart, Smith, Bolin, a n d Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t . 17 1071708 BOLIN, Justice Because Commercial container (dissenting). I believe Code ("the defense, that the enactment UCC") did not of Alabama's abrogate I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t the from Uniform sealedthe opinion. Section 7-2-314, A l a . Code 1975, provides: "(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 7-2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable i s implied i n a contract f o r t h e i r sale i f the s e l l e r i s a merchant w i t h r e s p e c t t o goods of that kind. Under t h i s s e c t i o n the s e r v i n g f o r v a l u e of food or d r i n k t o be c o n s u m e d e i t h e r on the premises or elsewhere i s a s a l e . "(2) such as: Goods trade t o be m u s t be "(a) Pass w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n in under the c o n t r a c t d e s c r i p t i o n ; "(b) In are of f a i r description; for merchantable at least the and the case of f u n g i b l e goods, average quality within the and "(c) Are f i t f o r the o r d i n a r y purposes w h i c h s u c h goods a r e u s e d ; and "(d) Run, within the variations p e r m i t t e d by t h e a g r e e m e n t , of even k i n d , q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y w i t h i n each u n i t and among a l l u n i t s i n v o l v e d ; a n d "(e) Are adequately contained, p a c k a g e d , a n d l a b e l e d as t h e a g r e e m e n t may r e q u i r e ; and 18 main 1071708 "(f) Conform to the promises or a f f i r m a t i o n s o f f a c t made o n t h e c o n t a i n e r or l a b e l i f any." Section 7-2-315, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "Where t h e s e l l e r a t t h e t i m e o f c o n t r a c t i n g h a s r e a s o n t o know a n y p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h t h e g o o d s a r e r e q u i r e d a n d t h a t t h e b u y e r i s r e l y i n g on the s e l l e r ' s s k i l l o r judgment t o s e l e c t o r f u r n i s h s u i t a b l e goods, t h e r e i s u n l e s s e x c l u d e d o r m o d i f i e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 7-2-316 an i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y t h a t t h e goods s h a l l be f i t f o r s u c h p u r p o s e . " It i s clear under Alabama law that a breach-of-an-implied-warranty claim, that the breach injury. See was the proximate i n order to establish a plaintiff cause must of the p l a i n t i f f ' s C a i n v . S h e r a t o n P e r i m e t e r P a r k S o u t h H o t e l , 592 So. 2 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ("Under b o t h t h e [ A l a b a m a Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine] or l a c k o f m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y , been the proximate parte v. 2004); cause General Motors General Motors and Chase and § 7-2-314, of the p l a i n t i f f ' s Corp., Corp., the the implied Plaintiffs 323 F. Supp. Motors warranty of fitness prove: the defect injuries."); 7 6 9 S o . 2 d 903 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; v. Kawasaki must Extended o f c o u r s e , must be p r o v e d t o h a v e 2d Corp., 1244 Ex Rose Ala. 140 F. f o r breach fora particular (1) t h e e x i s t e n c e 19 (N.D. U.S.A., S u p p . 2 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 9 (M.D. A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ("In a n a c t i o n of prove purpose, of the implied 1071708 warranty; (2) b r e a c h proximately Patrick o f t h e i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y ; and r e s u l t i n g from L u m b e r Co., that I n c . , 447 breach. So. 2d (3) d a m a g e s Barrington 785, Corp. 787 (Ala. Civ. to the to the v. App. 1984)."). Alabama has historically sealed-container causation. doctrine The 16 plaintiff ingesting $10 was 639, sued manufacturer the the 80 So. 734 (1918). of sounded The defendant a in tort and, argued element was Code. that the that soda was v. the after awarded plaintiff's the plaintiff t h a n damages p u r s u a n t In a f f i r m i n g the judgment, the stated: " I t i s a w e l l - s e t t l e d r u l e of law t h a t where a m a n u f a c t u r e r s e l l s a r t i c l e s o f h i s own make i n t h e absence of an express warranty, a warranty by i m p l i c a t i o n of law a r i s e s t h a t such a r t i c l e s are r e a s o n a b l y f i t f o r the p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h t h e y were intended. So i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an e x p r e s s w a r r a n t y the law i m p l i e s t h a t the m a n u f a c t u r e r or p a c k e r of f o o d s , b e v e r a g e s , d r u g s , c o n d i m e n t s , and c o n f e c t i o n s i n t e n d e d f o r human c o n s u m p t i o n w a r r a n t s t h a t their p r o d u c t s a r e f i t f o r human c o n s u m p t i o n , and that 20 of first I n Weeks, bottled therefore, a l l o w e d t o r e c o v e r no m o r e c o s t s Appeals doctrine t a i n t e d c o n t e n t s o f t h e b o t t l e and § 3 6 6 3 o f t h e 1907 of defense common-law s t a t e i n D o t h a n C h e r o - C o l a B o t t l i n g Co. A l a . App. i n damages. complaint a sealed-container established in this Weeks, as adhered to Court 1071708 t h e y have u s e d i n t h e s e l e c t i o n and p r e p a r a t i o n o f such articles that degree of care ordinarily e x e r c i s e d by p e r s o n s s k i l l e d i n the b u s i n e s s of p r e p a r i n g and p a c k i n g a r t i c l e s o f t h i s c h a r a c t e r f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n or s a l e to the g e n e r a l p u b l i c . "This w a r r a n t y i s not f o r the b e n e f i t of the retailer who purchases i n large quantities for resale, and such r e t a i l e r i s not l i a b l e to the consumer of a r t i c l e s of the c h a r a c t e r here i n v o l v e d , if he purchases of a r e p u t a b l e manufacturer or d e a l e r , and t h e g o o d s so p u r c h a s e d and s u p p l i e d by h i m a r e s u c h as a r e w i t h o u t i m p e r f e c t i o n s t h a t may be d i s c o v e r e d b y t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e o f a p e r s o n s k i l l e d and e x p e r i e n c e d i n d e a l i n g i n and s u p p l y i n g goods t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . 'As t o h i d d e n i m p e r f e c t i o n s , t h e c o n s u m e r m u s t be d e e m e d t o have relied on the care of the packer or m a n u f a c t u r e r o r t h e w a r r a n t y w h i c h i s h e l d t o be i m p l i e d by t h e l a t t e r . ' 29 R . C . L . p . 1 1 2 4 , § 2 9 . T h i s w a r r a n t y i s r a i s e d by i m p l i c a t i o n of law, f o r the benefit and protection of the consumer, r e g a r d l e s s of the absence of express contractual r e l a t i o n s between p a r t i e s , and i s e n f o r c e a b l e by contract remedies. ... "The second count of the c o m p l a i n t clearly states facts from which the law would imply a w a r r a n t y as b e t w e e n t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d t h e p l a i n t i f f t h a t the c o n t e n t s of the b o t t l e of C h e r o - C o l a were f i t f o r human c o n s u m p t i o n , a n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had u s e d , i n t h e s e l e c t i o n and p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s d r i n k , t h a t degree of c a r e o r d i n a r i l y e x e r c i s e d by persons s k i l l e d i n the b u s i n e s s of p r e p a r i n g such d r i n k s f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n and s a l e t o t h e p u b l i c , and further states facts showing a breach of such warranty. We t h e r e f o r e h o l d that the c o m p l a i n t , when l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d t o s u p p o r t t h e j u d g m e n t , s t a t e s a c a u s e o f a c t i o n ex c o n t r a c t u , and i s i n assumpsit f o r a breach of i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y , and u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 3662 o f t h e C o d e a s a m e n d e d , t h e c o u r t was i n v e s t e d w i t h a d i s c r e t i o n i n 21 1071708 the the taxation case." Weeks, 16 of App. Ala. costs at according 640 , 80 to So. the equities at 735 of (citations omitted). In K i r k l a n d v. 404, 171 So. Great A t l a n t i c 735 (1936), container doctrine plaintiff p u r c h a s e d from the of that flour injured after asserting flour the the the sack tainted ingesting Kirkland, 6 that the was had of flour was judgment and the sealed- In K i r k l a n d , was plaintiff's had found manufactured i t s way defendant's should tainted with nonsuit sued plaintiff bag N o t h i n g i n the the or The a the defendant, arsenic notice Ala. the defendant in of 233 or into the possession; or have had arsenic. The against the notice trial that court plaintiff. supra. In a f f i r m i n g the Court flour flour; a entered the the defendant arsenic. negligence. flour Co., applied transaction. with that the Court Tea defendant, a r e t a i l grocer, alleged while that a retail a c l a i m of complaint sacked was to this & Pacific judgment i n f a v o r of the defendant, this stated: This Court specifically noted i n Kirkland that the p l a i n t i f f had not a s s e r t e d a c l a i m u n d e r the U n i f o r m Sales A c t , the p r e d e c e s s o r to the UCC. 6 22 1071708 " I n D o t h a n C h e r o - C o l a B o t t l i n g Co. e t a l . v . W e e k s , 16 A l a . A p p . 6 3 9 , 640 , 80 S o . 734 , 735 [ ( 1 9 1 8 ) ] , s p e a k i n g o f b o t t l e d s o f t d r i n k s , i t was s a i d : 'Such r e t a i l e r i s n o t l i a b l e t o t h e consumer o f a r t i c l e s o f t h e c h a r a c t e r h e r e i n v o l v e d , i f he p u r c h a s e s o f a r e p u t a b l e m a n u f a c t u r e r o r d e a l e r , and t h e goods so p u r c h a s e d and s u p p l i e d by h i m a r e s u c h a s a r e w i t h o u t i m p e r f e c t i o n s t h a t may b e d i s c o v e r e d by t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e o f a p e r s o n s k i l l e d and e x p e r i e n c e d i n d e a l i n g i n and s u p p l y i n g goods t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . B i g e l o w v. Maine C e n t r a l R.R. C o . , 110 Me. 1 0 5 , 85 A. 3 9 6 , 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 627 [ ( 1 9 1 2 ) ] ; W i n s o r v . L o m b a r d , 18 P i c k . ([35] Mass.) 57 [(1836)]. "As to hidden i m p e r f e c t i o n s , t h e c o n s u m e r must be deemed t o have r e l i e d on t h e c a r e o f t h e p a c k e r o r m a n u f a c t u r e r o r t h e w a r r a n t y w h i c h i s h e l d t o be i m p l i e d by t h e l a t t e r . " 29 R . C . L . p . 1 1 2 4 , § 2 9 . ' "This case h a s b e e n d i s a p p r o v e d on another point, but not as to the above statement. Birmingham C h e r o - C o l a B o t t l i n g Co. v . C l a r k , [205 Ala. 678 , 89 So. 64 (1921 ) ] . We deem this announcement i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e b e t t e r r e a s o n and t h e t r e n d o f m o d e r n a u t h o r i t y on t h e s u b j e c t . ... " I n t h i s d a y t h e g r o c e r ' s s t o c k c o n s i s t s i n much of canned goods, goods i n b o t t l e s , c a r t o n s , s a c k s , p a c k a g e s o f g r e a t v a r i e t y , p u t up u n d e r p u r e f o o d regulations, and s o l d a t r e t a i l i n t h e unopened package. I n common r e a s o n t h e g r o c e r c o u l d n o t inspect the contents of every sack of f l o u r he handles. No o n e e x p e c t s h i m t o do s o . To i m p o s e a l e g a l d u t y s o t o do i s t o o e x a c t i n g . The l e g a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y s h o u l d r e s t w h e r e i t b e l o n g s , on h i m who made the package and inclosed poisonous substances therein. I n t h e a b s e n c e o f some a v e r m e n t d i s c l o s i n g t h a t t h e p o i s o n f o u n d i t s way i n t o t h e sack of f l o u r here i n v o l v e d w h i l e under t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e r e t a i l e r , o r some f a c t c h a r g i n g h i m w i t h l a c k 23 1071708 of c a r e i n s e l e c t i n g and s e l l i n g t h a t particular f l o u r , t h e c o m p l a i n t was s u b j e c t t o d e m u r r e r . " Kirkland, 233 A l a . a t 4 0 6 - 0 7 , 171 S o . a t 7 3 7 . T h i s C o u r t , i n B r a d f o r d v. Moore B r o t h e r s Feed & G r o c e r y , 268 Ala. 217, 105 So. of the sealed-container application asserting sellers a breach of purchased that infested were commercial implied feed, from sold the defendant, the trial defendant. a because cause argued of a retail on Weeks, appeal action seller the manufacturer. to claims retail In Bradford, the sacks defendant, "cow a retailer sued and i n favor of the and K i r k l a n d , supra, of an feed implied sold c o u l d not warranty the feed to unopened s a c k s t h a t were packed by This Court stated the f o l l o w i n g w i t h regard the sealed-container doctrine: "It in sacks warranty, the p l a i n t i f f of commercial feed" The p l a i n t i f f verdict supra, that of unopened o f an i m p l i e d f o r breach the p l a i n t i f f i n o r i g i n a l , to in original, a directed the against Sales Act. a breach R e l y i n g upon defendant doctrine by t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r . entered reaffirmed warranties The the feed alleging court (1958), the defendant w i t h mold. t h a t had been packed state 825 a r i s i n g under the Uniform plaintiff the 2d i s true that t h e two c a s e s 24 cited [Weeks a n d 1071708 K i r k l a n d ] are a u t h o r i t y f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the retailer who purchases in large quantities for r e s a l e i s not l i a b l e to the consumer of a r t i c l e s of f o o d f o r human c o n s u m p t i o n , i f he p u r c h a s e s o f a r e p u t a b l e m a n u f a c t u r e r o r d e a l e r , a n d t h e g o o d s so purchased and supplied by him are such as are w i t h o u t i m p e r f e c t i o n s t h a t may be d i s c o v e r e d b y t h e e x e r c i s e of the r e a s o n a b l e care of a p e r s o n s k i l l e d and e x p e r i e n c e d i n d e a l i n g i n and s u p p l y i n g goods t o the g e n e r a l p u b l i c . Cf. L o l l a r v . J o n e s , 229 Ala. 329, 157 So. 209 [(1934 ) ] . We may note here that b o t h c a s e s make t h e r u l e e x p r e s s l y a p p l i c a b l e o n l y to cases involving food intended for human consumption. B u t we may a s s u m e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s case, w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , t h a t the p r i n c i p l e i s e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e w i t h regard to feed s o l d f o r the s u b s i s t e n c e o f l i v e s t o c k and o t h e r d o m e s t i c a n i m a l s . I t w o u l d s e e m t h a t t h i s s h o u l d be so a f o r t i o r i . At l e a s t i t h a s b e e n so a p p l i e d i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . " I t may be a d d e d t h a t t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s t a t e d has n e i t h e r been o v e r r u l e d nor modified in this s t a t e , a l t h o u g h t h e t r e n d i s t o a more l i b e r a l r u l e i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s p l a c i n g an i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y u p o n t h e r e t a i l s a l e o f p a c k a g e d i t e m s as w e l l as those not packaged. The trend has apparently r e c e i v e d e s p e c i a l impetus s i n c e the almost u n i v e r s a l a d o p t i o n of the U n i f o r m S a l e s A c t s . See t h e n o t e s a t 90 A . L . R . 1269 a n d 142 A . L . R . 1 4 3 4 . The a d o p t i o n of the U n i f o r m Sales Act i n Alabama (Code 1940, Title 57, §§ 1-76) has w o r k e d no change of the general rule. The r e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e r u l e i n t h e Kirkland case, supra, occurred i n 1936, several years subsequent to the passage of the Act i n t h i s s t a t e , and t h e c o u r t i n t h a t c a s e e x p r e s s e d t h e i r cognizance of the Act but dealt with the case without reference thereto. This position is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e v i e w s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t and generally recognized m o s t e v e r y w h e r e t h a t § 21 of the U n i f o r m Sales Act i s o n l y d e c l a r a t i v e of the common l a w . M c C a r l e y v . Wood D r u g s , I n c . , 228 A l a . 25 1071708 2 2 6 , 153 S o . 446 [ ( 1 9 3 4 ) ] , 1186. 77 C . J . S . S a l e s § 3 2 9 , p . "The g e n e r a l r u l e t o w h i c h r e c o g n i t i o n i s g i v e n a b o v e , w o u l d r e q u i r e an a f f i r m a n c e w e r e i t n o t f o r t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t h e r e w h i c h we f e e l s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as w i t h i n an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e . Here the r e t a i l e r h a n d l e d , s t o r e d , o r t r e a t e d t h e goods i n a manner w h i c h w o u l d t e n d t o a l t e r t h e o r i g i n a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e goods as t h e y were p r o d u c e d by t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r and t h e c l e a r i n f e r e n c e a r i s e s t h a t t h e r e t a i l e r had a c t u a l or c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of the d e f e c t i v e s t a t u s of t h e goods. The K i r k l a n d c a s e , s u p r a [ 2 3 3 A l a . 4 0 4 , 171 S o . 7 3 6 ] , r e c o g n i z e d s u c h a s t a t u s t o be an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e w h e r e i t was o b s e r v e d : "'The c o m p l a i n t does n o t charge t h a t defendant manufactured or sacked this f l o u r ; n o r t h a t t h e p o i s o n f o u n d i t s way into the flour while in defendant's p o s s e s s i o n ; n o r t h a t a n y t h i n g on t h e s a c k , n o r t h e s o u r c e f r o m w h i c h i t came, g a v e notice to the r e t a i l e r , o r p u t h i m on inquiry touching i t s fitness f o r human consumption. F o r a u g h t a p p e a r i n g , t h i s was an ordinary sack of f l o u r , p u t up b y reliable millers, t o be sold by t h e retailer intact, f o r the convenience of b o t h merchant and customer.' "And again: "'In the absence of some averment d i s c l o s i n g t h a t t h e p o i s o n f o u n d i t s way i n t o the sack of f l o u r here i n v o l v e d w h i l e u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e r e t a i l e r , o r some fact charging him with lack of care i n selecting and selling that particular flour, the complaint was subject to demurrer.'" 26 1071708 Bradford, 268 reversing A l a . at the 219-20, judgment of 105 the So. trial c o n c l u d e d t h a t e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d of fact as warranty t o whether the buyer i n the sale having a s u p e r i o r knowledge better opportunity at court, 827-28. this that created a could of the feed 2d In Court question rely based on the implied on the defendant's of the c o n d i t i o n of the feed f o r i n s p e c t i o n of the feed, which or a might h a v e g i v e n t h e d e f e n d a n t a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f some defect in the feed pertaining fitness for a particular to purpose. i t s merchantability Bradford, or supra. I n A l l e n v . D e l c h a m p s , I n c . , 624 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 5 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , a case decided distinct breach line after the enactment between tort o f an i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y was n e v e r m o r e e v i d e n t . the defendant g r o c e r y been prepackaged supplier. at claims piece claims asserting the p l a i n t i f f purchased s t o r e two b a g s o f c e l e r y h e a r t s i n cellophane wrapping had i n s p e c t e d f o r freshness of and the lack of a i n tainted-food-product In A l l e n The d e f e n d a n t i t swarehouse o f t h e UCC, the raw the samples and q u a l i t y . ingested a allergic anaphylactic reaction. 27 by celery and had a cases from t h a t had defendant's of the c e l e r y The plaintiff an immediate I t was l a t e r d e t e r m i n e d that 1071708 the c e l e r y c o n t a i n e d sodium b i s u l f a t e , which the p l a i n t i f f , asthmatic, was sensitive to. The p l a i n t i f f causes of action s u e d t h e d e f e n d a n t , among o t h e r s , based on negligence and Alabama Extended M a n u f a c t u r e r ' s L i a b i l i t y and breach of the implied § 7-2-314, A l a . Code judgment i n favor claims. Allen, This Court principles warranty 1975. asserting wantonness, Doctrine The t r i a l court entered a as t o a l l t h e the ("AEMLD"), warranty of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y of the defendant under summary plaintiff's supra. stated applicable claims an the to tort following claims relative and i n tainted-food-product to breach-of-implied- cases: " I n r e g a r d t o t h e i r AEMLD c l a i m , t h e p l a i n t i f f s must p r o v e that Mrs. A l l e n 'suffered injury or d a m a g e s t o [ h e r s e l f ] o r [ h e r ] p r o p e r t y b y one who sold a product i n a defective condition unreasonably d a n g e r o u s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f as t h e u l t i m a t e u s e r o r c o n s u m e r . ' A t k i n s v . A m e r i c a n M o t o r s C o r p . , 335 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 141 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) . S i m i l a r l y , the p l a i n t i f f s ' i m p l i e d warranty of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y c l a i m r e q u i r e s that the p l a i n t i f f s show that t h e goods were unmerchantable or u n f i t f o r the ordinary purposes for which they are used. A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 7-2-314. T h e s e t w o s t a n d a r d s 'go h a n d - i n - h a n d , ' a t l e a s t a s applied to food products, ' f o r i t i s apparent that a food product is defective or unreasonably d a n g e r o u s i f i t i s u n m e r c h a n t a b l e o r u n f i t f o r human c o n s u m p t i o n . ' C a i n v . S h e r a t o n P e r i m e t e r P a r k S. H o t e l , 592 S o . 2 d 218 , 220 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e M o r r i s o n ' s C a f e t e r i a o f M o n t g o m e r y , I n c . , 4 31 28 the 1071708 So. 2 d 9 7 5 , 977 (Ala. 1983)). "This Court has adopted the 'reasonable expectations' test f o r determining i f food i s u n m e r c h a n t a b l e o r u n r e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s . C a i n , 592 So. 2 d a t 2 2 1 ; M o r r i s o n ' s , 4 3 1 S o . 2 d a t 9 7 8 . U n d e r t h i s t e s t , t h e p i v o t a l i s s u e i s what i s r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t e d by t h e consumer i n t h e f o o d as s e r v e d , and the '[n]aturalness of the substance to any i n g r e d i e n t s i n the food served i s important only i n determining whether t h e c o n s u m e r may reasonably expect t o f i n d such substance i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r type of d i s h o r s t y l e of food served.' M o r r i s o n ' s , 431 So. 2 d a t 978 ( q u o t i n g Z a b n e r v . H o w a r d J o h n s o n ' s , Inc., 2 0 1 S o . 2 d 8 2 4 , 82 6 (Fla. Dist. C t . App. 1967)). Because t h e terms ' d e f e c t , ' 'unreasonably dangerous,' and 'merchantable' a l l focus on t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e consumer, t h i s Court has found t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s t e s t t o be c o m p a t i b l e w i t h b o t h t h e AEMLD a n d t h e i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y o f merchantability. C a i n , 592 S o . 2 d a t 2 2 1 . " Allen, 624 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 8 . This defendant Court reversed t h e summary j u d g m e n t on t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' AEMLD c l a i m , 7 i n favor of the stating: "Delchamps a s s e r t s t h a t t h i s case i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m C a i n b e c a u s e i n C a i n t h e summary j u d g m e n t on t h e AEMLD c l a i m was b a s e d o n t h e t r i a l court's f i n d i n g t h a t t h e AEMLD d i d n o t a p p l y , w h e r e a s i n t h i s c a s e , D e l c h a m p s s a y s , t h e summary j u d g m e n t on t h e AEMLD c l a i m was b a s e d on e v i d e n c e establishing a lack of causal r e l a t i o n . To e s t a b l i s h t h e d e f e n s e o f a l a c k o f c a u s a l r e l a t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t may show ' t h a t t h e r e i s no c a u s a l r e l a t i o n i n f a c t b e t w e e n The defendant g r o c e r y s t o r e a p p a r e n t l y f a i l e d t o argue t h e s e a l e d - c o n t a i n e r d o c t r i n e as a d e f e n s e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m a l l e g i n g b r e a c h o f i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y b e c a u s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t a s t o t h a t c l a i m was r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s . 7 29 1071708 his activities product and i t American Motors 1976). One way relation is for i n connection with handling the s defective condition.' Atkins v. C o r p . , 335 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 143 ( A l a . to e s t a b l i s h t h i s l a c k of a causal t h e d e f e n d a n t t o show: " ' [ T ] h a t he i s i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f e i t h e r d i s t r i b u t i n g or p r o c e s s i n g f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n finished products; he r e c e i v e d a p r o d u c t a l r e a d y i n a d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n ; he d i d not c o n t r i b u t e t o t h i s d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n ; he h a d n e i t h e r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n , n o r an o p p o r t u n i t y to inspect the product which was superior to the knowledge or o p p o r t u n i t y of the consumer.' "Id. "While Delchamps showed that i t i s i n the business of d i s t r i b u t i n g f i n i s h e d products, that i t received a product already i n a defective condition, and that i t d i d not c o n t r i b u t e to the d e f e c t i v e condition, i t , nevertheless, did not show c o n c l u s i v e l y t h a t i t d i d n o t p o s s e s s an 'opportunity t o i n s p e c t t h e p r o d u c t w h i c h was s u p e r i o r t o t h e k n o w l e d g e o r o p p o r t u n i t y o f t h e c o n s u m e r . ' I d . The plaintiffs showed t h a t Delchamps d i d i n s p e c t f o r freshness and q u a l i t y and d i d have p r o c e d u r e s f o r r e q u i r i n g i t s suppliers to c e r t i f y compliance with other regulations regarding insecticides and pesticides. Whether Delchamps's opportunity to d i s c o v e r o r t o know o f t h e d e f e c t i s s u p e r i o r t o t h a t of the consumer i s a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t ; therefore, the court erroneously entered the s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a s t o t h e AEMLD c l a i m . Delchamps i s e n t i t l e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e and t o argue t h a t t h e r e was no c a u s a l r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n w h a t i t d i d o r f a i l e d t o do a n d M r s . A l l e n ' s i n j u r i e s , b u t i t m u s t do s o t o t h e f a c t f i n d e r . " Allen, 624 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 8 - 6 9 . Thus, t h i s 30 Court d i d not r e j e c t 1071708 the sealed-container doctrine causation; rather, to present as a d e f e n s e i tdetermined evidence to the element of that the defendant establishing that defense had f a i l e d as a m a t t e r o f law. It i s available clear to r e t a i l e r s under t h e Uniform defense order that of food to this i s still following district Court, provisions the A l a . Code Uniform Official 15(1), of the Uniform law and t o t h e UCC, a s a i n tort and those The q u e s t i o n i s to r e t a i l sellers of in i t s certification o f t h e UCC replaced the S a l e s A c t (and p r e s u m a b l y See t h e O f f i c i a l 1975, s t a t i n g was o f t h e UCC. court noted the enactment S a l e s A c t was Comment t o § as " [ c ] h a n g e s " that 7-2¬ § 15(2) of "[c]ompletely rewritten"; and t h e Comment t o § 7 - 2 - 3 1 5 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , s t a t i n g t h a t §§ ( 4 ) , and "[r]ewritten." that available doctrine a t common warranty. the enactment t h o s e o f t h e common l a w ) . 314, products o f an i m p l i e d defense the federal warranty sealed-container Sales Act, the predecessor a breach food products As the to causation i n both claims sounding asserting whether that "[u]nless (5) of the Uniform S e c t i o n 7-1-103(b), Sales A l a . Code d i s p l a c e d by t h e p a r t i c u l a r 31 Act had been 1975, p r o v i d e s provisions of t h i s 1071708 title, t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f law and e q u i t y , merchant and principal the and law agent, relative to estoppel, including capacity fraud, cause supplement contract, misrepresentation, d u r e s s , c o e r c i o n , m i s t a k e , b a n k r u p t c y , and other invalidating to the law v a l i d a t i n g or i t s provisions." Further, " [ t ] h e U n i f o r m C o m m e r c i a l C o d e was d r a f t e d against the backdrop o f e x i s t i n g b o d i e s o f law, i n c l u d i n g the common l a w a n d e q u i t y , and r e l i e s on t h o s e b o d i e s o f l a w t o s u p p l e m e n t i t s p r o v i s i o n s i n many important ways. A t t h e same t i m e , the Uniform C o m m e r c i a l Code i s t h e p r i m a r y s o u r c e o f c o m m e r c i a l law r u l e s i n a r e a s t h a t i t g o v e r n s , and i t s r u l e s represent choices made b y i t s d r a f t e r s and t h e e n a c t i n g l e g i s l a t u r e s about t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p o l i c i e s t o be f u r t h e r e d i n the transactions i t covers. T h e r e f o r e , w h i l e p r i n c i p l e s o f common l a w a n d e q u i t y may s u p p l e m e n t p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e U n i f o r m C o m m e r c i a l Code, they may n o t be used to supplant i t s provisions, or the purposes and p o l i c i e s those provisions r e f l e c t , unless a s p e c i f i c provision of t h e U n i f o r m C o m m e r c i a l Code p r o v i d e s otherwise. In the absence o f such a provision, the Uniform C o m m e r c i a l C o d e p r e e m p t s p r i n c i p l e s o f common l a w and equity that are inconsistent with either i t s p r o v i s i o n s or i t s purposes and p o l i c i e s . " Official 103, Comment t o § 7 - 1 - 1 0 3 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . p r i o r e x i s t i n g law supplements the various 'unless "Under § 7-1¬ code d i s p l a c e d by t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s It i s clear from this that i f t h e p a r t i c u l a r code do d i s p l a c e p r i o r l a w , t h e code p r e v a i l s . " v. C o m m e r c i a l C r e d i t E q u i p . C o r p . , 386 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 5 , 32 sections title.' provisions Toomey E q u i p . C o . 1159 ( A l a . 1071708 Civ. App. 1980). supplemented no Produce provision contradicts Co. v . C a g l e , Nothing indicate the this the from enactment defenses of t h e UCC those UCC applicable 529 S o . 2 d 2 4 3 previously accepted i s o f t h e UCC. Nor have available Official a t common Comment to causation were to to to be issues Schmieding ( A l a . 1988). o f §§ 7-2-314 a n d - 3 1 5 were abrogated the p l a i n t i f f s o f t h e UCC law. § the S e e H.C. defenses that In fact, 7-2-314 that affirmatively left l e g i s l a t u r e when t h e UCC was e n a c t e d . § 7-2-314 the principles. t o any o t h e r p r o v i s i o n defenses the words, i n the express provisions that Court other by t h e e x i s t i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f law and e q u i t y i f precise presented In directed supplants i t appears common-law i n t a c t by t h e The O f f i c i a l Comment t o states: " I n a n a c t i o n b a s e d on b r e a c h o f w a r r a n t y , i t i s o f c o u r s e n e c e s s a r y t o show n o t o n l y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f the warranty but the f a c t that the warranty was b r o k e n a n d t h a t t h e b r e a c h o f t h e w a r r a n t y was t h e proximate cause of the l o s s s u s t a i n e d . I n s u c h an a c t i o n an a f f i r m a t i v e s h o w i n g b y t h e s e l l e r t h a t t h e l o s s r e s u l t e d f r o m some a c t i o n o r e v e n t f o l l o w i n g his own d e l i v e r y o f t h e g o o d s c a n o p e r a t e a s a defense. Equally, evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the s e l l e r exercised care i n the manufacture, processing or s e l e c t i o n o f t h e goods i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e w a r r a n t y was i n f a c t b r o k e n . A c t i o n b y t h e b u y e r f o l l o w i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e g o o d s which ought t o have i n d i c a t e d t h e d e f e c t complained 33 by 1071708 o f c a n be shown as m a t t e r b e a r i n g on w h e t h e r t h e b r e a c h i t s e l f was t h e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r y . " Additionally, of a breach defenses I note that because causation o f an implied available warranty, to r e t a i l the abrogation defendants and t h e i n s u r e r making a retailer r e j e c t e d by t h i s Montgomery, cannot element defendant strictly other consumer and Court. o f t h e goods See Ex p a r t e and must n o t i g n o r e rules 1976) the insurer i t sells. to develop goods v. American t h e common that would insurers Motors (rejecting the idea The i d e a i tsells Morrison's I n c . , 4 3 1 S o . 2 d 9 7 5 , 979 allow Atkins o f t h e goods (Ala. experience make has been sellers ("Courts of l i f e liability and of food they or sell."); 335 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 142 of s t r i c t of Cafeteria of 1983) of the products Corp., of the as t o t h a t would have t h e e f f e c t o f making t h e r e t a i l liable i s an e l e m e n t (Ala. u n d e r t h e AEMLD s t a t i n g " t h a t d e f e n d a n t s who a r e o r d i n a r i l y e n g a g e d i n t h e business of foreseeable conditions marketing harm in products proximately the products should be resulting which make liable from them f o r the defective unreasonably dangerous"). Accordingly, doctrine I would hold that as s t a t e d i n K i r k l a n d , s u p r a , 34 the sealed-container and B r a d f o r d , supra, i s 1071708 available as in asserting claims a defense to the a breach retail o f an seller implied UCC. Stuart, Smith, and Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 35 of food products warranty under the

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.