## Facts

- Walker Manufacturing purchased a catalytic converter seam welder manufactured by RWC, Inc. in 1979.
- In 1988, Walker hired T.J. Snow Co. to upgrade the welder’s electrical/control systems and related circuits using components specified by Walker.
- Snow’s shop order included installing specified control units and circuits, building a water catch basin/tray, and cleaning and painting the machine; it stated the “basic welder” was “not to be rebuilt.”
- Snow did not design the original machine, did not alter its basic function or overall configuration, and returned the same machine to its owner (Walker) after completing the work.
- The machine had a pinch point at the welding wheels; the injury-producing hazard existed in the machine’s pre-retrofit configuration.
- About five years after Snow’s work, Walker trained Naomi Whitaker to operate the welder and instructed her to reach inside and chisel off splattered metal.
- Whitaker followed that instruction, her hand was caught at the pinch point, and her fingers were broken.
- Whitaker sued Snow on products-liability and warranty theories, arguing Snow’s retrofit effectively made it a manufacturer or seller of a defective product.

## Issues

1. Whether a contractor that retrofits an existing machine to an owner’s specifications, without rebuilding the basic machine, can be treated as a manufacturer or seller subject to Indiana strict products liability.
2. Whether warranty theories (express or implied) can be maintained against a retrofit contractor that did not sell the underlying machine and undertook only specified work.
3. Whether the contractor had an independent duty to add guards/warnings or ensure OSHA compliance sufficient to support liability despite the absence of manufacturer/seller status.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for T.J. Snow.
- Snow’s work was predominantly a service (retrofit/upgrade), not the manufacture or sale of a product placed into the stream of commerce.
- Because Snow did not sell, lease, or otherwise place the welder into the stream of commerce, it was not subject to strict products liability as a manufacturer or seller under Indiana law.
- Whitaker’s warranty theories failed because Snow did not sell the machine and did not assume broad manufacturer-type obligations for the machine’s overall safety.
- The court declined to impose liability based on a claimed duty to add guards/warnings or ensure OSHA compliance where Snow’s undertaking was limited to Walker’s specifications and did not include rebuilding or redesigning the machine’s hazardous configuration.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana strict products liability generally applies to manufacturers and sellers who place products into the stream of commerce; service providers who repair or retrofit an owner’s existing equipment are ordinarily outside that rule.
- A repairer or retrofitter is not treated as the manufacturer of a “new” product absent a substantial rebuilding or remanufacture that effectively creates a new product.
- Warranty liability typically requires a sale of goods or a contractual assumption of warranty-type obligations; performing specified retrofit work on an already-owned machine, without selling it, does not by itself create broad warranties of overall product safety.
- A limited contractual undertaking to perform specified upgrades does not, without more, impose a general duty to re-engineer safety features or cure preexisting design hazards.

## Conclusion

The court held that a contractor that performed a limited retrofit to an owner’s existing machine, without rebuilding it or placing it into the stream of commerce, was a service provider rather than a manufacturer or seller; therefore, strict products liability and warranty claims based on the machine’s preexisting design hazard could not proceed.


Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., 151 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 1998)