Hanberry v. Hearst Corporation

California Court of Appeal · 1969 · Torts

276 Cal. App. 2d 680 (1969)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNegligent misrepresentationDutyProduct endorsementGood Housekeeping sealduty to third partiesno privity requiredpublic policy

Facts

Plaintiff bought a pair of shoes from Akron that had been imported and distributed by Victor B. Handal & Bros., Inc., and alleged the shoes were defectively designed and manufactured because their soles were dangerously slippery on vinyl flooring. She wore the shoes the same day, slipped on her kitchen's vinyl floor, and suffered severe personal injuries. Hearst published Good Housekeeping magazine, allowed the shoes and their packaging to bear the Good Housekeeping Consumers' Guaranty Seal, and represented that products advertised in the magazine were "good ones" and that advertising claims were truthful. Plaintiff alleged she relied on Hearst's seal and representations in purchasing the shoes, and that Hearst either made no test or inspection of the shoes or did so negligently.

Issue

Whether a magazine publisher that, for its own economic gain, endorses a product with a seal of approval intended to induce consumer purchases may be liable to a consumer who relied on the endorsement and suffered personal injury because the product was defective and not as represented. Also, whether the complaint stated such a claim against Hearst despite lack of contractual privity and despite Hearst's refund-or-replacement language in its seal.

Rule

When a party voluntarily involves itself in the marketing of a product by lending its reputation and issuing an endorsement intended to induce consumers to buy the product, public policy may impose a duty to use ordinary care in making that endorsement. Privity is not required where a voluntarily assumed relationship and public policy justify a duty to third parties, and negligent misrepresentation may exist where the endorser fails to exercise reasonable care in testing, inspecting, or ascertaining the accuracy of its representations and a consumer reasonably relies on them, resulting in physical harm.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, Harbor Home Journal sells its "Trusted Choice" seal to manufacturers whose products it features in paid advertisements. Nora Kim bought a space heater after seeing the seal on the box and in the journal's ads, relied on the journal's assurance that approved products had been independently checked for safety, and suffered burns when the heater malfunctioned; she alleges the journal either performed no meaningful testing or did so carelessly.

Which is the strongest argument that Nora has stated a claim against Harbor Home Journal?

Explanation. The majority held that a party that voluntarily involves itself in marketing by lending its reputation and issuing an endorsement intended to induce purchases may owe consumers a duty to use ordinary care in making that endorsement. Privity is unnecessary where public policy supports a duty to third parties. The court rejected strict liability and did not require a direct contract.