## Facts

- Homeowners contracted with a pool company to design and install an in-ground gunite swimming pool; the contract included an optional six-foot diving board installed at the deep end.
- During a pool party, the homeowner used the diving board for the first time, slipped from the side while walking toward the end, fell onto concrete coping, and suffered serious injuries.
- The homeowners alleged the diving board was defective because the skid-resistant surface did not cover the entire walking area, leaving a smoother area that made the board unreasonably dangerous.
- The written contract contained language attempting to disclaim implied warranties and limit liability.

## Issues

1. Whether U.C.C. implied warranties apply to a consumer-goods component (a diving board) supplied within a predominantly services contract for pool design and installation.
2. Whether Maryland Commercial Law § 2-316.1 renders unenforceable contract language that attempts to disclaim implied warranties in a transaction involving consumer goods and services.
3. In strict products liability, whether inadvertent or careless use constitutes a defense, and how assumption of risk should be presented to the jury.

## Decision

- The court held the diving board was “consumer goods” supplied in a transaction involving consumer goods and services, so U.C.C. implied warranties applied to the board even though the overall contract was mainly for services.
- The court held that, under CL § 2-316.1, the attempted disclaimer of implied warranties was unenforceable as to the consumer-goods component.
- The court reaffirmed that contributory negligence based on a failure to discover a defect does not bar strict-liability recovery, but assumption of risk may bar recovery if the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encountered the danger.
- The court approved the need for a new trial and required jury instructions that distinguish ordinary carelessness from true assumption of risk.

## Legal Principles

- In a mixed goods-and-services transaction, U.C.C. implied warranties may apply to consumer goods furnished as part of a contract that is predominantly for services.
- Under Maryland Commercial Law § 2-316.1, any language used by a seller of consumer goods and services attempting to exclude or modify implied warranties of merchantability or fitness (or related remedies) is unenforceable.
- In Maryland strict products liability, contributory negligence consisting of mere failure to discover or guard against a defect is not a defense; assumption of risk remains a defense when the plaintiff appreciates the specific danger and voluntarily confronts it.
- Jury instructions in strict-liability cases must avoid treating inadvertence or ordinary carelessness as a complete defense and must focus on knowledge and voluntary acceptance of the risk for assumption of risk.

## Conclusion

The court held that U.C.C. implied warranties applied to the consumer-goods diving board supplied with a service-heavy pool installation and that statutory consumer protection invalidated the contract’s attempted disclaimer, while also clarifying that strict-liability defenses turn on assumption of risk rather than mere careless use, warranting a new trial with corrected instructions.


Anthony Pools v. Sheehan, 295 Md. 285, 455 A.2d 434 (Md. 1983)