Waitman v. Pass & Seymour
In these two consolidated appeals, Stephanie Laney, Danny Waitman, and others, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, sued the manufacturers of electrical receptacles known as back-wire push-in receptacles. The plaintiffs alleged that the receptacles posed an unreasonable risk of fire and damage to electrical wiring. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs amended complaints alleged facts inconsistent with facts alleged in their original complaints concerning damages, disregarded the later allegations, and concluded that the economic loss rule barred the counts for negligence and strict products liability. The court therefore sustained demurrers to those counts without leave to amend. The court later sustained demurrers to the plaintiffs remaining counts for violation of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200) without leave to amend and dismissed the complaints.
On appeal, the plaintiffs contend their amended complaints properly alleged damage to property other than the receptacles themselves, were not sham pleadings, and were not barred by the economic loss rule. They also contend their later amended complaints adequately allege an injury-in-fact as required to establish standing under the unfair competition law and adequately allege unlawful business practices and deceptive advertising. Court conclude that the sustaining of the demurrers to the counts for negligence and strict products liability without leave to amend was proper, but that sustaining of the demurrers to the unfair competition counts was error. Court therefore reverse and remand with directions.
Comments on Waitman v. Pass & Seymour