APRIL 2026 | 31 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. question of “whether manufacturers’ products liability applies to purely economic damages.”6 The issue boiled down to an analysis of the relationship between products liability (tort, in nature) and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (contract, in nature). The Waggoner court noted that liability under a products liability theory is primarily tortious in nature, “independent of UCC warranty provisions because recovery under manufacturers’ products liability arises from a duty to the public rather than from a contractual relationship.”7 In contrast, the court stated that recovery under the UCC arises out of the contractual relationship between a buyer and a seller of goods, including recovery of a buyer’s economic losses (in Waggoner, like other commercial disputes, the contract established the basis for the application of the UCC and recovery of economic losses).8 The Waggoner court explained that tort law, as compared to the UCC and contract law, has not traditionally protected the economic expectations of parties.9 This gave reason for the court to conclude that “economic damages are more logically related to the UCC than to manufacturer’s products liability.”10 This observation that the UCC and, by extension, contract law provided a sufficient avenue for recovery of economic losses positioned the Waggoner court to find “no need to extend manufacturers’ liability into an area already occupied by the UCC.”11 The Waggoner court proclaimed, “To extend manufacturers’ products liability to include purely economic losses would undermine the UCC’s comprehensive and finely tuned statutory mechanism for dealing with the rights of parties to a sales transaction with respect to economic losses.”12 Ultimately, the Waggoner court held, “In Oklahoma no action lies in manufacturers’ products liability for injury only to the product itself resulting in purely economic loss.”13 The holding in Waggoner followed the rationale used by the United States Supreme Court four years earlier in East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delava Inc.14 In an opinion delivered by Justice
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==