## Facts

- Daniel R. Shaffer, a patron at a restaurant operated by Victoria Station, Inc., ordered wine served in a glass.
- While taking his first or second sip, the wine glass shattered in his hand, allegedly causing permanent injury.
- Shaffer sued the restaurant asserting (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (RCW 62A.2-314), and (3) strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
- The glass manufacturer was named as a defendant but was never served.
- Before trial, Shaffer voluntarily nonsuited the negligence claim after indicating he could not prove negligence, and sought to proceed only on warranty and strict liability.
- The trial court treated the action as sounding only in negligence and dismissed the case; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 62A.2-314’s implied warranty of merchantability applies to injuries caused by a defective glass used to serve wine in a restaurant, even if title to the glass does not pass to the customer.
2. Whether strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A applies to a restaurant for a defective serving glass used in providing food or drink for value.
3. Whether an action pleading warranty and strict liability may be dismissed as “negligence only” after the plaintiff nonsuits the negligence count.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for trial on the implied warranty and strict liability theories.
- The court held that RCW 62A.2-314 applies because the serving for value of food or drink is a “sale,” and merchantability includes being “adequately contained,” which reaches the serving container.
- The court held that § 402A strict liability may apply because the wine and glass together may be treated as the product supplied to the consumer, and a glass that shatters in ordinary use may be defective and unreasonably dangerous.
- The court held that the lower courts erred by characterizing the case as negligence-only where the pleadings asserted distinct warranty and strict liability claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under RCW 62A.2-314, the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed on or off the premises constitutes a sale, and an implied warranty of merchantability arises.
- Merchantability under RCW 62A.2-314 includes that goods are fit for ordinary purposes and “adequately contained,” permitting warranty claims based on a defective container integral to serving food or drink.
- For UCC implied warranty analysis in restaurant service, the lack of a separate transfer of title to the container is not dispositive when the container is part of what is supplied for value.
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A may impose strict liability where a product supplied to a consumer is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, including when the defective condition arises from an essential serving container.
- Negligence, implied warranty, and strict liability are distinct theories; withdrawing a negligence claim does not extinguish properly pleaded warranty or strict liability claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that a restaurant patron injured by a shattering wine glass may proceed against the restaurant on UCC implied warranty of merchantability and § 402A strict liability, treating the beverage and its container as an integrated product supplied for value, and it reversed the negligence-only dismissal and remanded for trial.


Shaffer v. Victoria Station, Inc., 91 Wash. 2d 295, 588 P.2d 233 (1978)