Hanberry v. Hearst Corp.

Citation. 276 Cal.App.2d 680, 81 Cal.Rptr. 519

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation276 Cal.App.2d 680, 81 Cal.Rptr. 519

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff slipped and fell while wearing a pair of shoes that was given a seal of approval in defendant’s magazine. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligent misrepresentation of the shoes.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A party who endorses a product for their own economic gain may be liable to a purchaser who, relying on the endorsement, buys the product and is injured because it  is not as represented in the endorsement.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

In voluntarily assuming this business relationship, we think respondent Hearst has placed itself in the position where public policy imposes upon it the duty to use ordinary care in the issuance of its seal and certification of quality so that members of the consuming public who rely on its endorsement are not unreasonably exposed to the risk of harm.

View Full Point of Law

Hanberry (plaintiff-appellant) purchased a pair of shoes that Hearst Corporation (defendant-appellee) had given a seal of approval in its Good Housekeeping magazine. While Hanberry was wearing the shoes, she slipped on the vinyl floor of her kitchen and fell. She suffered several physical injuries as a result of the fall. Hanberry brought suit against Heart Corporation for negligently giving a seal of approval to the allegedly defective shoes.

Issue.

Whether a party who endorses a product for their own economic gain may be liable to a purchaser who, relying on the endorsement, buys the product and is injured because it is not as represented in the endorsement?

Held.

Yes, Hanberry has stated a cause of action exists in this case. The judgment of dismissal is reversed as to the claim for negligent misrepresentation.

Discussion.

A party who endorses a product for their own economic gain may be liable to a purchaser who, relying on the endorsement, buys the product and is injured because it  is not as represented in the endorsement. Here, Hearst Corporation was not the buyer or seller of the shoes. Instead, Hearst Corporation held itself out as a “disinterested third party” who had examined the shoes and found them to be satisfactory. In giving its endorsement, Hearst Corporation represented to the public that it possessed superior and special knowledge about the shoes. Therefore, Hearst Corporation may be liable for negligent representation, regardless as to whether that representation was a fact or opinion.