Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P planned to grow beans on his farm. Glenn Johnson of Servi-Tech recommended a combination of the herbicides Eptam and Prowl. D manufactures Prowl. P applied the herbicides at the application rate specified by Johnson. In early June, the fields were planted with great northern and pinto beans. The beans flourished in a strip of field No. 1 where no herbicide had been applied due to a parked center pivot. The rest died. P's expert was able to exclude the possibility that Eptam had caused the plant injury. P sued D for warranty of merchantability and strict liability. Ps expert testified that the injury was caused by Prowl. D’s expert claimed it was the quality of the water that caused the issue. The jury entered a general verdict for P for $ 193,500. D moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, which motions were overruled. D appealed. D claimed there was insufficient evidence to find that D was strictly liable, there was insufficient evidence to find that the herbicide was not merchantable, the court erred in instructing the jury to determine whether the disclaimer was conspicuous, that P's knowledge of the disclaimer on the herbicide label, through their agent, excluded the implied warranty of merchantability as a matter of law, and the court failed to rule on the unconscionability of the limitation of damages clause on the herbicide label.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co