Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Commercial Transactions
Negligent Misrepresentation Claim for Failed Tree Graft Sealant
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Renna v. Henry Co., No. C054131, 2008 WL 4968024 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2008), the California Court of Appeals held that even if some misconduct on behalf of the defendant's attorney had occurred, it was not reasonably probably that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict otherwise, so the plaintiff had not been deprived of a fair trial. The court also affirmed the lower court's ruling excluding certain evidence from the plaintiff's damage claim because the claimed injuries were not reasonably foreseeable.
Background
Plaintiff used 124 TreeCure, a sealant sold by defendant The Henry Company (THC), to seal grafts on apple trees in his orchard. Id. at *1. Relying on information obtained at THC's booth at an agricultural show, the plaintiff applied only one coat of sealant to the grafts. Id. The sealant cracked and a number of grafts failed, causing the plaintiff to remove his entire orchard, because it was "economically unfeasible to farm what had become a patchwork of trees of varied ages, sizes and stages of development," and he sued THC for strict products liability, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Id. At trial, the jury found for the plaintiff but awarded him less than THC's settlement offer, less THC's court costs, resulting in a judgment for THC. Id. at *3. The trial court denied the plaintiff's request for a new trial, and he appealed. Id. at *4.
Arguments
The plaintiff argued that misconduct by THC's trial attorney deprived him of a fair trial and resulted in the unfavorable damage verdict, and also argued that the court's in limine ruling excluding 7,500 trees from his damage claim was in error. Id. at *5.
Analysis and Holdings
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that "although THC's attorney may have committed misconduct, it was not reasonably probable that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict in the absence of his challenged actions." Id. at *5-13. The court further found that a reasonable person could not have foreseen any risk of harm to the trees not treated with THC's sealant, and thus held that the lower court did not err in excluding evidence of damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of his decision to remove the ungrafted, as well as the unsuccessfully grafted, trees. Id. at *14.
The case was decided on November 24, 2008.