Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Tracy SLATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., Defendant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained when the front wheel on the driver's side of her automobile fell off as she was driving. Plaintiff alleges that the wheel fell off due to a defect in the lug nuts that she allegedly purchased from Sears, Roebuck & Co. (defendant) five days before the accident. Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, alleging breach of express warranty. Plaintiff acknowledged at her deposition that no express warranty was made with respect to the lug nuts. The court erred, however, in granting that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, alleging breach of implied warranties. Defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that it did not sell the lug nuts to plaintiff (see, Horn v. Homier Distrib., 272 A.D.2d 909, 910, 707 N.Y.S.2d 582). Further, defendant is not entitled to judgment based upon the unavailability of the lug nuts following the accident (see, Bauer v. Bashline Indus., 219 A.D.2d 841, 841-842, 632 N.Y.S.2d 341; Abar v. Freightliner Corp., 208 A.D.2d 999, 1000, 617 N.Y.S.2d 209; Otis v. Bausch & Lomb, 143 A.D.2d 649, 650, 532 N.Y.S.2d 933). The existence and nature of a product defect may be proven circumstantially (see, Clark v. Globe Bus. Furniture, 237 A.D.2d 846, 847, 655 N.Y.S.2d 184; Otis v. Bausch & Lomb, supra, at 650, 532 N.Y.S.2d 933), and the proof submitted by plaintiff raises triable issues of fact whether the lug nuts allegedly sold by defendant were defective, i.e., not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used” (UCC 2-314[2][c]; see, Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248, 258-259, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250, 662 N.E.2d 730, rearg. denied 87 N.Y.2d 969, 642 N.Y.S.2d 198, 664 N.E.2d 1261). We therefore modify the order by denying the motion in part and reinstating the first cause of action.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 07, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)