Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)

Citation: Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Parent Document: Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1985-04-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1172788/becker-v-irm-corp/ ↗

Full Text

2,188 chars

*482 The treatment of cases involving used goods and their sale better highlights relevant concerns ignored by the majority. In Tauber-Arons Auctioneers Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 268 [161 Cal. Rptr. 789], the Court of Appeal held that an auctioneer of used machinery who did not perform any maintenance or repair on the equipment, did not inspect it, and sold it "as is," could not be held strictly liable for any defects in the items. The court stated that when considering the requirement that a potential defendant be a participant "in the manufacturing-marketing system" before he be held subject to strict liability, one significant factor is "the requirement that defendant have a participatory connection with the enterprise which `created consumer demand for and reliance upon' the particular `injury-producing product' [citation] not just products of the same classification." (101 Cal. App.3d at p. 276; see also Brejcha v. Wilson Machinery, Inc. (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 630, 639 [206 Cal. Rptr. 688].) The court further emphasized participation in the "initial distribution of the particular manufacturer's products...." (P. 277.) Because a used machinery dealer normally "has no continuing business relationship with the manufacturer in the course of which he can adjust the cost of protection from strict liability ... the rationale which underlies Vandermark simply is inapplicable to such a dealer. Moreover, the risk reduction which was sought in Vandermark on the assumption that `the retailer himself may play a substantial part in insuring that the product is safe or may be in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to that end' (61 Cal.2d at p. 262) ... is simply unattainable because the `used-goods dealer is normally entirely outside the original chain of distribution of the product....' (Tillman v. Vance Equipment Co. [(Ore. 1979) 596 P.2d 1299, 1304].)" (101 Cal. App.3d at p. 283, fn. omitted; see also Wilkinson v. Hicks (1981) 126 Cal. App.3d 515, 521 [179 Cal. Rptr. 5]; LaRosa v. Superior Court (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 741, 753-754 [176 Cal. Rptr. 224].) Analogous considerations apply in the case of the "used property" lessor.

Other Sections in This Document (238)

Full Text