Cited by

(“To allow tort liability in commercial transactions would totally emasculate these provisions of the U.C.C.

2881 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1991); and Wolner v. Mahaska Indus., Inc., -43 (Minn.1982) (applying the special circumstances test and holding that Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp Corp., et al., which limited tort recovery for economic losses in commercial transactions, did not apply retroactively).

(legislature did not intend for tort law to circumvent U.C.C.’s statutory scheme)

(legislature did not intend for tort law to circumvent U.C.C.’s statutory scheme) (overruled on other grounds).

Finally, Judge Marshall held that count II of the 1983 complaint and counts I and IV of the 1984 complaints (negligence and products liability claims) were barred by this court’s (modified in a ).

we held that economic losses arising out of commercial transactions, except those involving personal injury or damage to other property, are not recoverable under the tort theories of negligence or strict liability.

that economic losses arising out of commercial transactions are not recoverable under negligence and strict products liability theories, unless they involve personal injury or damage to “other property.” In Hapka , the supreme court further restricted the availability of tort recovery by eliminating

It urges this court, however, (commercial transactions for sale of goods which involve economic loss only are not recoverable in tort).

( which allowed tort recovery of economic losses for “personal injury or damage to other property” arising out of commercial transactions).

See, ( in regard to UCC pre-emption of the law of negligence in cases involving damage to other property); (declining to follow Patton v. Thompson Elec.

the Minnesota Supreme Court originally held that economic losses that arise out of commercial transactions, except those involving personal injury or damage to other property, are not recoverable under the tort theories of negligence or strict products liability.

On petition of plaintiffs Conrad and Brian Hapka, we review the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court’s to submit tort theories to the jury in an action for damages resulting from diseased seed potatoes purchased from defendant P & H Farms.

Damage to “Other Property” the supreme court concluded the uniform commercial code provisions which govern commercial transactions would be emasculated if economic losses arising out of commercial transactions were recoverable under tort liability theories.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that a

Relying on the court’s the trial court then concluded appellant’s economic losses arising out of the commercial transaction were not recoverable under tort theories.

The two most important issues in this case are: (1) applies so as to bar the creamery from recovering economic losses under a negligence theory; and (2) whether an exculpatory clause in the contract was enforceable.

(distinction made between economic losses and injury to person or property in context of product liability claims).

The trial court, granted Lindsay’s motion for summary judgment.

statute of limitations and that, plaintiffs’ strict liability and negligence claims were barred.

and its progeny barred appellant’s claims.