Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 25 N.Y.2d 340 (1969)

r
r

In a breach of implied warranty action for personal injuries, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the sale, not the date of the injury, even for third parties lacking contractual privity.

r
r

Summary

r

Cecile Mendel sustained injuries in 1965 when a glass door installed by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (PPG) in 1958 allegedly struck her. Mendel sued PPG for breach of implied warranty, among other claims. The central issue was whether the statute of limitations should run from the time of the sale (contract theory) or from the time of the injury (tort theory). The New York Court of Appeals held that the contract statute of limitations applied, barring Mendel’s claim because it was filed more than six years after the sale. The court reasoned that prior case law, legislative intent, and policy considerations favored applying the contract statute of limitations to warranty claims, even for those without contractual privity.

r
r

Facts

r

r

r
• In October 1958, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (PPG) installed glass doors at the Central Trust Building in Rochester, New York.

r

• On October 29, 1965, Cecile Mendel allegedly was injured when one of the doors struck her.

r

• Mendel and her husband sued PPG, asserting causes of action based on negligence and breach of implied warranty.

r

• The negligence claims were not subject to the appeal.

r

r

r
r

Procedural History

r

r

r
• The Supreme Court granted Central Trust Company’s motion to dismiss the breach of warranty claims, and no appeal was taken.

r

• The Supreme Court also granted PPG’s motion to dismiss the breach of warranty claims.

r

• The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the dismissal.

r

• The Mendels appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

r

r

r
r

Issue(s)

r

What is the applicable statute of limitations period for a cause of action for personal injuries based on breach of implied warranty: three years from the date of injury (tort) or six years from the date of sale (contract)?

r
r

Holding

r

No, because New York precedent and the Uniform Commercial Code indicate that the statute of limitations for a breach of warranty claim runs from the date of the sale, not the date of the injury.

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

r

The Court relied on Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp., which held that the six-year contract statute of limitations applies to personal injury actions arising from breach of implied warranty. The Court emphasized that a breach of warranty action is independent of negligence, even if associated with a tortious act. As stated in Blessington, “while an action for breach of a statutorily implied warranty of fitness may involve, incidentally, some showing of negligence, the contract breached is not merely one to use due care, but is a separate (implied) contract of guaranty that the goods are fit for the purpose for which they are sold and bought.”

r

The Court rejected the argument that Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument Corp., which eliminated the privity requirement for warranty claims, created a tort cause of action with a three-year statute of limitations for third parties. The Court clarified that Goldberg extended implied warranty protection to non-privity parties, not creating a new tort action.

r

The Court addressed the argument that a three-year limitations period should apply only to strangers to the contract. The Court reasoned that such a rule would create an