## Facts

- On February 4, 1978, Gloria (Mrs. A.L.) Crandell bought a used Coronado clothes dryer from Larkin and Jones Appliance Company, Inc. for $100.
- The dryer was displayed on the seller’s sales floor with a tag stating it was a “Larkin and Jones Quality Reconditioned Unit,” “Tag-Tested,” and “Guaranteed.”
- A salesperson also told Crandell the dryer carried a 90-day guarantee for workmanship, parts, and labor, and Crandell testified she bought the dryer because of the guarantee and the price.
- Larkin and Jones delivered and installed the dryer the same day.
- Several days before the fire, Crandell noticed the dryer had overheated a load of clothing; she lowered the heat selector dial and continued using it, stating the thought of a fire did not occur to her.
- On February 18, 1978, Crandell asked her son to dry a blanket; about 15–20 minutes later she noticed smoke coming through furnace vents in her bedroom.
- Crandell went to the basement utility room and found it full of smoke coming from the dryer; she opened the door using wet towels because flames were coming out the front and tried unsuccessfully to smother the flames.
- Crandell called the fire department; by the time it arrived, the fire had spread within the utility room and smoke had damaged other areas of the home.
- Total property damage exceeded $25,000.
- Fire department personnel testified the only ignition source was inside the dryer; other testimony indicated the blanket ignited after becoming excessively hot.
- Crandell’s witnesses attributed overheating to thermostat problems, including pitted and badly deteriorated contact points; one thermostat allegedly had been inoperable for some time, and the thermostats were allegedly the wrong type.
- The trial court granted Larkin and Jones’s motion to dismiss, rejecting Crandell’s strict-liability and warranty theories and concluding she failed to establish causation; Crandell appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a commercial seller of used products can be strictly liable in tort under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A for harm caused by a defective used product it sells.
2. Whether the seller’s tag and oral “90-day guarantee” statements could support express-warranty claims, and whether implied warranties (including merchantability) can apply to a merchant seller of used goods.
3. Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to Crandell, the proof of defect and causation was sufficient to avoid dismissal and require submission to a jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that strict liability under § 402A is not limited to sellers of new goods and may apply to a commercial seller of used products in appropriate circumstances.
- The court held that Crandell’s express-warranty and implied-warranty theories were legally available on these facts and should not have been dismissed as a matter of law.
- The court held that the evidence of an internal ignition source, overheating, and thermostat defects was sufficient to create jury questions on defect and proximate cause.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant “engaged in the business of selling” a product may, in appropriate cases, be subject to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A strict liability even when the product sold is used.
- In deciding a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; if reasonable jurors could find liability, the case should go to the jury.
- Written labels and sales representations such as “reconditioned,” “tag-tested,” “guaranteed,” and a specific time-limited guarantee may constitute express warranties if they form part of the basis of the bargain.
- A merchant seller of goods may be subject to implied warranties, including merchantability, and used goods are not automatically excluded; whether the goods were fit for ordinary purposes can be a fact question.
- Defect and causation in a products case may be shown through circumstantial evidence and testimony (including fire-origin testimony and component-condition evidence) sufficient to permit, but not require, a finding for the plaintiff.

## Conclusion

Crandell reinstated claims against a commercial used-appliance dealer after a reconditioned, “guaranteed” dryer allegedly overheated and started a house fire; the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that strict liability and warranty theories may apply to used-goods sellers and that Crandell’s proof of defect and causation was enough to require a jury determination.


Crandell v. Larkin and Jones Appliance Co., 334 N.W.2d 31 (1983)