In Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., an Illinois appellate court rejected a manufacturer’s argument that it was not liable for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose because it followed the plans and specifications provided by the owner.
Plaintiff, Theresa Maldonado (“Maldonado”), was employed by Empress One Riverboat Casino (the “Casino”) as a housekeeper. One day, while cleaning the bar area, Maldonado was seriously injured when a door on the bar counter fell on her right arm. The door was part of a section of the bar that could be lifted so that employees could enter and exit the bartenders’ area. The door was unable to be secured and fell as a result of the rocking of the boat.
Defendant, Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc. (“CWC”), manufactured and installed the bar at the Casino. Maldonado filed suit against CWC for breach of express warranties and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. An officer of CWC testified that the drawings and specifications provided by the Casino for the bar required a lift-top swing door but did not require the door have a locking mechanism.
CWC argued that it was not liable to a third party such as Maldonado for breach of the implied warranties when it followed the plans and specifications provided by the owner. CWC relied on a prior ruling of the court, which held that, under a negligence theory of liability, a contractor does not owe a duty to third parties with respect to goods it manufactures if it follows the owner’s plans or specifications, unless the plans were so obviously dangerous that a reasonably prudent contractor would be put on notice that the product was dangerous and likely to cause injury.
The trial court agreed with CWC’s argument and granted judgment in favor of CWC. Thereafter, Maldonado appealed the trial court’s decision. In overturning the trial court, the appellate court noted that in order for a plaintiff to prevail for breach of implied warranties, the plaintiff must show: (1) a sale of goods; (2) that the seller of the goods is a merchant of such goods; and (3) that the goods were not of merchantable quality, i.e., that the goods were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which the goods were used. Whether a duty to a third party existed is not an element in a breach of warranty action. Thus, the appellate court concluded the case relied upon by CWC was inapplicable because Maldonado had not alleged a negligence count. The appellate court found that the only issue in determining liability was whether the product met the required standard of merchantability or fitness. In the context of an implied warranty count, the appellate court held that it is irrelevant whether the manufacturer adhered to the plans or specifications provided by the owner.
The Maldonado case demonstrates that, in breach of implied warranties cases, the manufacturer’s compliance with the owner’s plans or specifications is irrelevant and will not excuse the manufacturer from such claims of lack of merchantability or fitness.