NH Construction Law
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Links

#27:  Contractor Liability for Dangerous Products

3/8/2015

1 Comment

 
Recently 60 Minutes aired an exposé on Lumber Liquidators’ sales of Chinese-made laminate flooring containing elevated levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.  Class action lawsuits against Lumber Liquidators in California and Florida quickly followed, alleging that the company knew or should have known that its laminate flooring products were mislabeled, improperly tested and unsafe.

The safety of a product purchased by a contractor is typically not something that the contractor worries about.  If the product is sold on the open market, the contractor presumes it to be safe, essentially relying on the seller to make sure that it is.  But to the homeowner, the contractor is the seller – and the homeowner usually indulges the exact same presumption.  If a contractor buys and installs a dangerous product, is he liable to his customer for any resulting injury?  The answer is far from clear.

In the context of a “transaction in goods,” the Uniform Commercial Code provides that all products sold by “a merchant with respect to goods of that kind” carry an implied warranty of “merchantability” promising, among other things, that the goods “are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.”  Dangerous products – at least those whose danger is not apparent -- typically are not considered fit for their ordinary purposes in the absence of a warning.  Unless this implied warranty has been disclaimed by agreement of the parties (a rare event in the typical residential construction project) the contractor may be at risk―but only if he is both engaging in a “transaction in goods” and is a “merchant with respect to goods of that kind.”

Whether a contractor building a project is engaged in a sale of goods for purposes of the Uniform Commercial Code, or is simply furnishing a service, depends on which of two tests is applied: the “predominant factor” test, which asks “whether their predominant factor, their thrust, their purpose, reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved,” or the “gravamen of the action” test, which asks “whether the underlying action is brought because of alleged defective goods or because of the quality of the service rendered.”   In re Trailer and Plumbing Supplies, 133 N.H. 432, 436 (1990).  While the “predominant factor” test was applied in that particular case (no claim of defective goods was made), the “gravamen of the action” test could well be applicable where defective installation is not at issue and the claim centers on a defect in the product itself―with the result that the contractor is more likely to be deemed a seller of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code.  The answer must await a test case.

But is the contractor also a merchant who “deals in goods of the kind?”  A singular sale of the offending product, standing alone, is not sufficient; such sales must be frequent enough to justify the conclusion that the contractor “deals” in them.  The more such sales it makes, the more likely the contractor is to pass this second test as well.

Apart from the Uniform Commercial Code, ordinary tort law sometimes renders a seller strictly liable for “unreasonably” dangerous products, i.e., where “the magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product,” Vautour v. Body Masters Sports Industries, Inc., 147 N.H. 150, 154 (2001).  Fortunately for contractors, our Supreme Court has rejected strict liability for contractors, at least as to the structure as a whole:  “Although a building contractor supplies a structure to the owner, ‘[t]he generally accepted view has not been to impose strict liability, either on a warranty or tort theory, to the building contractor who is regarded as being engaged primarily in the rendition of a service, i.e., the construction of a building on land owned by another pursuant to plans and specifications provided by the owner.’”  Bruzga v. PMR Architects, P.C., 141 N.H. 756, 762 (1997).  Whether the case will immunize contractors from liability for a particular defective component of a structure remains to be seen, but this language certainly bodes well for contractors.  And the Court’s mention of a “warranty” theory within the scope of the general rule of nonliability may have promising implications for claims under the Uniform Commercial Code as well.


1 Comment

    Author

    Frank Spinella

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly