Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that Wal-Mart was entitled to dismissal of a products liability suit brought by a consumer who was injured when a portable gas can he was using exploded.

Jamie Grubbs was attempting to light a fire using fuel as an accelerant. The portable gas can he was using, which was manufactured by Blitz, U.S.A., and allegedly sold to Grubbs by Wal-Mart, exploded, causing him to suffer severe burns and disfigurement. Grubbs sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and other Wal-Mart entities, alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under South Carolina’s commercial code. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Granting the motion, the district court found that to recover under a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability theory, a plaintiff must prove that a merchant sold the goods at issue, the goods were not “merchantable” at the time of sale, the plaintiff suffered injury from the goods and that these were the proximate cause of the injuries, and the seller was provided timely notice. Here, the court said, the plaintiff alleges that the gas can was sold “at a time prior to February 2015.” This date is conclusory in that it could be any time in the last decade or century, the court noted, adding that the plaintiff’s other allegation limiting the time frame for purchase to “a time period when Wal-Mart sold model no. 50833 gas cans in its Barnwell location” is also conclusory in that it lacks a concrete timeframe. Citing case law, the court held that claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability require more concrete time allegations than the ones the plaintiff alleges. Although the defendants here could possibly have sold the gas can to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s allegations are merely conceivable, not plausible, the court found. Thus, absent more specific facts, dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim is warranted.

Citing the statute’s plain language, the court added that the term products liability includes all actions based on strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, and breach of warranty theories. Here, the court said, the plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims arise out of personal injury caused by a product and assert that the Nutribullet was not safe for its intended use. The claims therefore fall within the CPLA’s scope and are thus precluded as separate claims, the court held.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims.

Citation: Grubbs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2020 WL 3843635 (D.S.C. July 8, 2020).