A recent article warns that the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code "has altered many of the traditional notions of products liability, as it had been delineated under the Uniform Sales Act," 10 PRAC. LAW. 49 (1964). Such undue alarmism is apparently designed to inflate the value of those who have a little bit of Code information by scaring the harried and hurried lawyer who has not yet found the time to study this legislation in depth. The statement is simply not true. It is doubtful whether any provision in the warranty sections of the Code does not find substantial support in cases decided under the Sales Act. It would be surprising indeed if a commercial code greatly affected products liability law. The warranty cause of action, and this is the only area in which the Code touches products liability, is not commercial law at all. In its most important modern function, the compensation of buyers personally injured by using a product, it is essentially tort law. This is true even if it is classified as one sounding in contract to determine what statute of limitations period applies, to decide whether contributory negligence should be a bar to recovery, or for some other purpose. In fact, it may be argued that it was only through an historical accident or because of a too strict use of logic that the law allows any recovery for personal injuries in a warranty action. If the imposition of strict liability upon vendors had developed out of traditional negligence principles, it would have been on firmer ground and many of the present-day problems in this area would have been avoided. See, Prosser, The Assault Upon The Citadel (Strict Liability To The Consumer), 69 YALE L. J. 1099 (1960)."
Uniform Commercial Code, Liability Law, Personal Injury
Frederick M. Hart,
Impact of the Uniform Commercial Code on Products Liability Law,
Available at: http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship/41