Hanberry v. Hearst Corp.

276 Cal.App.2d 680 (1969)

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 purchased a pair of shoes on March 30, 1966, at a retail store owned and operated by the Akron (D1); the shoes had been imported and distributed to D by Victor B. Handal & Bros., Inc. (D2). The shoes were defective in manufacture and design and had a low coefficient of friction on vinyl and certain other floor coverings commonly used in this area and were slippery and unsafe when worn on such floor coverings. P was unaware of the defect, and in wearing the shoes on the same day she purchased them, she stepped on the vinyl floor of her kitchen, slipped, fell and sustained severe personal injuries. D publishes a monthly magazine known as Good Housekeeping in which products, including the shoes P purchased, were advertised as meeting the 'Good Housekeeping's Consumers' Guaranty Seal.' With respect to this seal, the magazine stated: 'This is Good Housekeeping's Consumers' Guaranty' and 'We satisfy ourselves that products advertised in Good Housekeeping are good ones and that the advertising claims made for them in our magazine are truthful.' The seal itself contained the promise, 'If the product or performance is defective, Good Housekeeping guarantees replacement or refund to consumer.' The Good Housekeeping seal was affixed to the shoes and the container for the shoes with D's consent. P alleges that D made no examination, test or investigation of the shoes or a sample thereof, or if such tests were made they were done in a careless and negligent manner and that D's issuance of its seal and certification as to the shoes was not warranted by the information it possessed. In part, P sought to recover from D for negligent misrepresentation. D demurred to the count for negligent misrepresentation, and the court dismissed that claim. P appealed.