DAVIS et ux, Appellants, v. HOMASOTE COMPANY et al, Respondents, 281 Ore. 383

Summary

The builders purchased flooring from the manufacturer's distributor, and brought products liability action alleging that the flooring failed to conform to express and implied warranties and was not suitable for use. The trial court submitted the case to the jury only on the issues of express warranty and negligence and the jury returned a verdict for the manufacturer. The jury found that the manufacturer was not negligent, had not provided the builders with any express warranties, and that the builders were negligent in installing the flooring. On appeal, the court affirmed judgment on the jury verdict, holding that: 1) because the builders purchased the flooring from a distributor there was no privity of contract enabling them to recover from the manufacturer for breach of an implied warranty; 2) the issue of contributory negligence was properly before the jury to determine whether the builders had a "duty" to seek advice which they neglected; and 3) the circuit court did not abuse ...