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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.