In Compex Int'l Co. v. Taylor, 209 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2006), the Kentucky Supreme Court places the state in the minority with regard to privity requirements for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and its apparent inconsistency with the state’s other products liability statutes. Ronald W. Eades, Professor of Law at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville, discusses this case in this commentary. Although the majority of U.S. jurisdictions do not require privity between those plaintiffs listed as appropriate third parties and possible defendants in a chain of distribution in a products liability case, Kentucky maintains that the listed third parties must have been in privity with the defendant who was sued. Since the Kentucky Products Liability Act limits liability for claims against retailers to negligence or express warranty when the manufacturer is identified, Compex seems to eliminate claims for implied warranty of merchantability in products liability actions. 

Subscribers can access the complete commentary on lexis.com. Additional fees may be incurred. (approx. 4 pages)
 
Non-subscribers may purchase the complete commentary on LexisNexis Store.