Barko Hydraulics, LLC v. Michael Shepherd

Summary

The court held that Shepherd presented sufficient evidence to submit his express-warranty claim to the jury because a specific defect need not be identified when the evidence shows that the loader was defective in performance or failed to conform to the warranty. The court also held that repeated unsuccessful repairs could support a finding that the limited warranty failed of its essential purpose, but that mental-anguish damages were unavailable under the circumstances. Because the jury returned a general verdict that could include improper mental-anguish damages, the court reversed the judgment in its entirety and remanded for a new trial. Justice Murdock and Justice Shaw concurred, Justice Bryan would have limited the new trial to damages, and Justice Stuart would have directed judgment as a matter of law for Barko.