Clark v. International Harvester Company

581 P.2d 784 (1978)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a custom farmer who contracts to plow or preplant farmland and is generally compensated according to the number of acres plowed or preplanted. P works 10 to 15-hour work days but works only during the spring and fall. P purchased a Model 1466 turbo-diesel tractor from McVey's, Inc. It was manufactured by D. P began using the tractor, but it broke down several times. McVey's repaired the tractor free of charge under the warranty. Because of these breakdowns, P lost 11 1/2 days of work. Early in the fall of 1973, more than a year and a half after he had purchased the tractor, P noticed a loss of power in the tractor while preplanting a field covered with potato vines, weeds, and other debris. P believed the tractor was not pulling properly and it was no longer economically practical to operate the tractor that season. Renting a substitute tractor for the 1973 fall season was too expensive, so P did not do any custom farming with the tractor in the fall of 1973. In the spring of 1974, P was able to operate the tractor on a limited basis for 14 days. Dr. Limpert, an associate research professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Utah concluded that something was slipping in the process of transmitting the power from the engine to the draw bar in the TA mode. Under Dr. Limpert's supervision, the TA unit was replaced by the repair shop with parts obtained from McVey's. Dr. Limpert tested the tractor after repair and determined that it was performing satisfactorily. P sued Ds alleging negligent design and manufacture and breach of implied and express warranties. McVey's cross-claimed against D for indemnification. The trial court granted D's motion for summary judgment on the warranty claims but ruled that the disclaimer provisions in the form did not exclude liability for negligence. P presented its case with Dr. Limpert testifying as an expert. D moved for a dismissal on the ground that P had only established consequential damages and that purely consequential damages were not recoverable in negligence. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court found for P and D appealed.