## Facts

- Roland Siemen operated a sawmill and sought a multi-rip saw to increase production.
- Manufacturer Lloyd G. Alden could not timely deliver a new saw and suggested Siemen contact Edwin Korleski, who owned two Alden saws.
- Korleski, a sawmill operator, had a newer saw in use and an older Alden multi-rip saw bought in 1962 that had not been used since 1965.
- Siemen visited Korleski’s sawmill twice; Korleski demonstrated the newer saw and later showed the older saw, which was partially dismantled and covered.
- Korleski stated the older saw was in operating condition but required Siemen to supply and install blades, motor, shiv, belts, pulleys, and a sawdust removal system.
- Siemen purchased the older saw for $2,900, assembled it, and began operating it.
- In 1970, Siemen was injured when a cant of wood exploded while being fed through the saw.

## Issues

1. Whether a seller who is not in the business of selling such equipment may be held strictly liable for an allegedly defective used multi-rip saw sold in an isolated transaction.
2. Whether implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arose under UCC §§ 2-314 and 2-315 where the seller was not a merchant with respect to the goods and the buyer did not rely on the seller’s skill or judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Korleski on the strict liability and implied warranty counts.
- Korleski was not subject to strict products liability because the sale was an isolated transaction and he was not engaged in the business of selling saws.
- Korleski was not liable for breach of implied warranties because he was not a merchant with respect to multi-rip saws and Siemen did not rely on Korleski’s skill or judgment in selecting the saw.
- The negligence claim was not part of the appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A applies to sellers engaged in the business of selling the product as part of the commercial chain of distribution; it generally does not apply to casual or occasional sellers disposing of used equipment in isolated sales.
- The UCC implied warranty of merchantability (§ 2-314) arises only if the seller is a “merchant with respect to goods of that kind,” requiring regular dealing in such goods or holding oneself out as having specialized knowledge or skill related to them.
- The UCC implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (§ 2-315) requires that the buyer rely on the seller’s skill or judgment to furnish suitable goods; prior independent selection of the type of goods and lack of reliance defeats the claim.
- Summary judgment is proper where the record establishes, as a matter of law, that the defendant is outside the class of sellers subject to strict liability and that the statutory elements for implied warranties are not met.

## Conclusion

The court held that an end-user who made a single sale of used sawmill equipment was not within strict products liability doctrine and did not give rise to UCC implied warranties because he was not a merchant of such goods and the experienced buyer did not rely on the seller’s skill or judgment.


Siemen v. Alden, 34 Ill. App. 3d 961 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)