Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-101 (2026)
Breach of warranty — Liability
The lack of privity between plaintiff and defendant shall be no defense in any action brought against the manufacturer or seller of goods to recover damages for breach of warranty, express or implied, or for negligence, although the plaintiff did not purchase the goods from the defendant, if the plaintiff was a person whom the manufacturer or seller might reasonably have expected to use, consume, or be affected by the goods.
History. Acts 1965, No. 35, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-318.1.
Research References
Ark. L. Notes.
Copeland, The Implied Warranty of Habitability and the Use of the Uniform Commercial Code by Analogy, 1983 Ark. L. Notes 5.
Ark. L. Rev.
Torts — Strict Liability in Products Cases, 22 Ark. L. Rev. 796.
Products Liability — Assumption of Risk and Contributory Negligence as Defense, 23 Ark. L. Rev. 297.
The Return of Caveat Venditor as the Law of Products Liability, 23 Ark. L. Rev. 355.
Products Liability — Extent of Manufacturers Liability for Breach of Warranty, 24 Ark. L. Rev. 374.
Torts — Strict Liability: Protection for the Bystander in Products Cases, 26 Ark. L. Rev. 106.
Note, The Arkansas Product Liability Act of 1979, 35 Ark. L. Rev. 364.
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Survey—Business Law, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 89.
Case Notes
Applicability.
This section has no effect on suits filed prior to its effective date. Knowles v. Vick Chem. Co., 240 Ark. 125, 398 S.W.2d 204 (1966).
The dismissal without prejudice of an action pending on the effective date of this section and the filing thereafter of an identical complaint by and against the same parties did not render this section applicable. Myers v. Council Mfg. Corp., 276 F. Supp. 541 (W.D. Ark. 1967).
This section is not limited to cases involving injury or damage to persons or property. Mack Trucks of Ark., Inc. v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 246 Ark. 101, 437 S.W.2d 459 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds, Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977).
This section was applicable in suit for breach of implied warranty of fitness against manufacturer of trucks and against dealer. Mack Trucks of Ark., Inc. v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 246 Ark. 101, 437 S.W.2d 459 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds, Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977).
This section, relating to liability for breach of warranty, does not limit strict liability actions to injuries to the ultimate consumer or user; nevertheless, the product has to meet the definition of unreasonably dangerous found in § 16-116-102. Elk Corp. v. Jackson, 291 Ark. 448, 725 S.W.2d 829 (1987).
In a negligence action, the real question was whether the property appraiser owed any legal duty to the plaintiff property owners, and the plaintiffs' reliance on §§ 4-86-101, 16-114-303, and 16-22-310 to support their proposition that privity of contract with an appraiser was not a requirement in their negligence suit was misplaced. Marlar v. Daniel, 368 Ark. 505, 247 S.W.3d 473 (2007).
Persons Protected.
The question of whether the plaintiff was a person protected by this section is one of fact. Mack Trucks of Ark., Inc. v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 246 Ark. 101, 437 S.W.2d 459 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds, Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977).
The intention to permit a second purchaser or even a lessor from a purchaser to recover for breach of warranty seems implicit in the language providing that lack of privity should not be a defense although the plaintiff did not purchase the goods from the defendant. Mack Trucks of Ark., Inc. v. Jet Asphalt & Rock Co., 246 Ark. 101, 437 S.W.2d 459 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds, Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977).
When a seller of tomato seed warrants it to be of a particular fitness and variety, the warranty extends in the distributive chain to a purchaser of tomato plants which are grown from the seeds for commercial purposes. L.A. Green Seed Co. v. Williams, 246 Ark. 463, 438 S.W.2d 717 (1969).
Cited: Marion Power Shovel Co. v. Huntsman, 246 Ark. 152, 437 S.W.2d 784 (1969); Flippo v. Mode O'Day Frock Shops, 248 Ark. 1, 449 S.W.2d 692 (1970); Blagg v. Fred Hunt Co., 272 Ark. 185, 612 S.W.2d 321 (1981); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).