Product Defect Case Series
ARCO Products Co. v. May, 113 Nev. 1295, 948 P.2d 263 (1997).
Product:
Injury:
Mechanism of Injury:
Nature of Defect:
Jury Verdict:
Issue on appeal:
Product Defect Law Categories:
Result:
Full Case Text: ARCO Products Co. v. May, 113 Nev. 1295, 948 P.2d 263 (1997)
Case Quotes:
Because May's claimed damages are purely economic in nature, the district court erred in failing to dismiss May's negligence *1299 claim pursuant to the economic loss doctrine. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Pratt & Whitney, 107 Nev. 535, 815 P.2d 601 (1991); Central Bit Supply, Inc. v. Waldrop Drilling & Pump, Inc., 102 Nev. 139, 717 P.2d 35 (1986); Local Joint Executive Board v. Stern, 98 Nev. 409, 651 P.2d 637 (1982). In Stern, this court applied the common law rule that, “absent ... injury to person or property, a plaintiff may not recover in negligence for economic loss.” Id. at 410, 411, 651 P.2d at 638. This rule was reiterated in Waldrop and Pratt. May does not suggest that the economic loss doctrine as discussed in Stern and its progeny is no longer good law in Nevada, thus a discussion of these cases is unnecessary. Because the district court should not have reached the merits of a negligence claim for purely economic damages, we decline to address ARCO's remaining arguments on the negligence issue.
45 The district court, relying upon the economic loss doctrine, granted ARCO's motion to dismiss May's strict products liability claim, despite its conflicting determination that May's claimed inventory loss could constitute property damage. May correctly argues that the strict products liability claim should not have been dismissed if his claimed inventory losses can arguably be characterized as property damage. However, May's failure to collect full payment from customers in sales transactions is certainly a purely economic loss, and the economic loss doctrine applies to cases of strict products liability in exactly the same fashion as it applies to cases of negligence. Stern, Waldrop, and Pratt each involved claims based on strict liability as well as negligence, and in each of these cases this court adhered to the rule that an action based on purely economic damages could not be maintained under theories of strict liability or negligence.1 Pratt, 107 Nev. at 538, 815 P.2d at 603; Waldrop, 102 Nev. at 140–141, 717 P.2d at 36; Stern, 98 Nev. at 411, 651 P.2d at 638. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly granted ARCO's motion to dismiss May's strict products liability claim.
ARCO Products Co. v. May, 113 Nev. 1295, 1298-99, 948 P.2d 263, 266 (1997)
FN 1 “The doctrine of strict products liability was developed to assist plaintiffs who could not prove that products which caused physical injury at the point of use had been manufactured negligently. The doctrine is unavailable for purely economic loss; its application is limited to personal injury and property damage.” Stern, 98 Nev. at 411, 651 P.2d at 638.
ARCO Products Co. v. May, 113 Nev. 1295, 1299, 948 P.2d 263, 266 (1997)
