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 product's performance or function shows nonconformity with the warranty, and the maintenance and warranty-period issues were fact-bound disputes. The court further held that mental-anguish damages were unavailable on these facts, and because the jury returned a general verdict that did not distinguish permissible from impermissible damages, the entire judgment had to be reversed and a new trial ordered. Justice Stuart, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have directed judgment as a matter of law for Barko; Justice Bryan would have limited the new trial to damages.