## Facts

- Martin L. Collins earned his living traveling the country performing a knife-throwing act with his family.
- In 1966, Collins bought five new Uniroyal, Inc. tires from a Uniroyal distributor for use on his station wagon.
- The tires came with two written warranties: (1) a “lifetime” warranty against defects in materials or workmanship for the life of the original tread, and (2) a “road-hazard” warranty representing the tires would not suffer blowouts when used normally.
- The warranty statement contained an italicized disclaimer and remedy limitation that (a) excluded consequential damages, (b) limited Uniroyal’s obligation to repair or replacement, and (c) disclaimed other express or implied warranties.
- Uniroyal also ran advertising for the tires stating: “If it only saves your life once, it’s a bargain.”
- About five months after purchase, on March 27, 1967, Collins was driving with his family on Interstate 80 near Chicago on the way to an engagement in Des Moines, Iowa.
- The right rear tire failed, the vehicle went out of control and rolled over, and Collins suffered fatal injuries.
- Elizabeth V. Collins, as administratrix of her husband’s estate, sued Uniroyal seeking damages for wrongful death on theories including strict liability in tort and breach of express warranty.
- At trial, the judge submitted both theories to the jury and required the jury to specify the basis for any liability finding.
- The judge removed the disclaimer/limitation language from the warranty document before it was provided to the jury and instructed that damages for breach of warranty were not confined to repair or replacement of the tire.
- The jury returned a $125,000 verdict for plaintiff, expressly on breach of warranty.
- Uniroyal appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

## Issues

1. Whether any error in submitting strict liability in tort to the jury required reversal when the jury found liability only on breach of express warranty.
2. Whether Uniroyal’s warranty limitation limiting the remedy to repair or replacement and excluding consequential damages for personal injury was enforceable, or instead could be refused under UCC § 2-719(3) as unconscionable.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in its handling of the express-warranty submission, evidentiary rulings, and the admission of plaintiff’s causation testimony.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for plaintiff.
- Any alleged error in submitting strict liability to the jury was moot, because the jury based its verdict solely on breach of express warranty; if there was error, it was harmless.
- The court upheld the trial court’s refusal to enforce the warranty’s exclusion of consequential damages and its repair-or-replace limitation in a case involving fatal personal injury from consumer-type goods.
- The court rejected Uniroyal’s remaining claims of trial error and left the $125,000 verdict intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under UCC § 2-719(3), a clause excluding or limiting consequential damages for personal injury arising from consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable.
- A court may refuse to enforce a remedy limitation (such as repair or replacement only) when applying it would bar consequential damages for serious personal injury or death connected to product failure.
- When a jury’s verdict rests on a single theory expressly identified by the jury (here, breach of express warranty), alleged error related to submission of an alternative theory (here, strict liability) does not require reversal absent prejudice affecting the verdict.
- Seller statements in warranty materials and related representations (including advertising emphasizing safety) can be relevant to the warranty claim and to the fairness of enforcing limiting language in that warranty.

## Conclusion

Collins v. Uniroyal affirmed a wrongful-death judgment based on breach of express warranty after a new tire failed and caused a fatal rollover. Because the jury found for plaintiff only on warranty, any claimed error in submitting strict liability was harmless. Applying UCC § 2-719(3), the court upheld the trial judge’s refusal to enforce Uniroyal’s warranty language that limited the remedy to repair or replacement and excluded consequential damages for personal injury, allowing recovery for the death despite the written limitation.


Collins v. Uniroyal, Inc., 315 A.2d 30 (1973)