HANBERRY v. HEARST CORP. 276 Cal.App.2d 680 (1969). CASE BRIEF

HANBERRY V. HEARST CORP.

276 Cal.App.2d 680 (1969)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Hanberry (P) sought review of decision, which entered judgment in favor of Hearst (D) in P's action alleging civil conspiracy, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation as a result of an injury suffered while wearing shoes advertised and endorsed by D.

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 co-efficient 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.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner