## Facts

- A consumer bought a rubber elastic exercise rope with end loops, sold under the trade name “Lithe-Line,” from a department store; the product was manufactured by a cosmetics company.
- The purchase was made by brand name after the consumer saw advertising; the salesperson gave no special instructions beyond the packaged materials.
- While using the exerciser in a leg-raising routine with the rope under her feet and loops in her hands, the consumer suffered sudden unconsciousness.
- The record supported an inference that the exerciser slipped from her foot while under tension and struck her eye.
- The consumer alleged the stretched rubber rope created substantial striking force, could slip off the instep during intended use, and lacked warnings or protective features addressing that risk.

## Issues

1. Whether a retailer could be liable for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose when the product was purchased under its trade name in the District of Columbia.
2. Whether the manufacturer’s alleged failure to warn about the risk of the elastic exerciser slipping and striking the user created a triable negligence issue, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The en banc court affirmed summary judgment for the retailer.
- The court held that District of Columbia sales law eliminated any implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose for a sale of a specified article under its trade name.
- The en banc court (divided) affirmed summary judgment for the manufacturer.
- The majority concluded the evidentiary showing did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact on negligence, including failure to warn, where the product was a simple elastic rope and the injury resulted from slipping rather than breakage or a hidden defect.
- A dissent would have allowed a jury to consider whether the risk and adequacy of warnings presented a fact question.

## Legal Principles

- For a sale in the District of Columbia of a specified article under a patent or trade name, there is no implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where, even taking the plaintiff’s evidence favorably, it does not establish a jury question on breach of duty and causation.
- A manufacturer’s duty to warn generally does not extend to dangers that are apparent to a reasonable user of a simple product absent evidence of a hidden or special hazard or a product defect.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for both defendants, ruling that the trade-name sale barred an implied-warranty claim against the retailer and that the record did not support a triable negligence or failure-to-warn claim against the manufacturer for injuries caused when an ordinary elastic exerciser slipped during use.


Jamieson v. Woodward & Lothrop, 247 F.2d 23 (D.C. Cir. 1957) (en banc)