Ford Motor Co. v. Myers
| Decision Date | 04 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | 27079 |
| Citation | 117 So. 362,151 Miss. 73 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | FORD MOTOR CO. v. MYERS et al. [*] |
AUTOMOBILES. Truck manufacturer held not liable for death of remote buyer resulting from defective cuff causing truck to plunge into ditch.
Where automobile truck and alleged defective cuff had come from manufacturer through several purchasers before they reached deceased, so that deceased had no contractual relations with manufacturer held not liable for death of deceased because of defective cuff, which broke, causing truck to become unmanageable and plunge into ditch, since automobile is not a dangerous instrumentality per se.
APPEAL from circuit court of Scott county, HON. G. E. WILSON, Judge.
Action by A. J. Myers and others against the Ford Motor Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Judgment reversed.
Green Green & Potter, for appellant.
To begin with, we take it as axiomatic that the Ford Motor Company is not an insurer of its products, neither does it have to give to them the best possible inspection, and that all that they are required to do, would be to reasonably inspect. Wilkinson v. Andsieno Bottl. Co. (1911) 154 Mo.App. 563, 136 S.W. 720; Kehler, Next Friend, v. Schwenk, 144 Pa. 348; Brand v. St. Louis Car Co., 112 S.W. 511; Dean, Executor, v. Central City Light & Power Co., 125 S.W. 739; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Neilson, 259 F. 156; Haines v. Spencer, 167 F. 266 (1909).
It was established at an early date by an English decision that an action for tort would not lie against a manufacturer in favor of a person, other than his immediate vendee and this case has been followed for a long time, and has been closely adhered to by this court, the general exceptions from the rule, are in cases of foods, high explosives and poisons, and also where the manufacturer knew of the defects and concealed the same, being guilty of fraud. Lately, to that line of decisions which held that where an article was inherently dangerous, the manufacturer was liable to one not immediately his vendee for negligence in the construction, and a number of courts headed by New York in the McPherson v. Buick Motor Co. case, have announced the doctrine that the manufacturer is liable to one not his immediate vendee for negligence in the construction of an article not in itself imminently dangerous, but made imminently dangerous by reason of the negligence of the manufacturer and it is upon this line of decisions that plaintiff seeks to recover. The authorities in other states are equally divided on this subject. But, be that as it may, this court is thoroughly committed to the doctrine that unless the article, in and of itself and without regard to the negligence of the manufacturer, is manufactured imminently dangerous, there can be no recovery from any person other than the immediate vendee. These cases are Vicksburg v. Holmes, 106 Miss. 234, 63 So. 454, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 469; W. T. Pate v. Westbrook Elevator Co., 142. Miss. 419, 107 So. 552; Kilcrease v. Galtney Motor (Miss. 1928), 115 So. 193.
U. B. Parker and Mize & Dudley, for appellees.
The case of Charles B. Heckel v. Ford Motor Co., from the New Jersey court of errors and appeals, March 16, 1925, 39 A. L. R., page 989, 128 A. 242, which case is directly in point and discusses the liability of a manufacturer of dangerous appliances, saying: "The manufacturer of appliances that will become highly dangerous when put to the uses for which it is designed and intended, because of defects in its manufacture owes to the public a duty irrespective of any contractual relation, to use reasonable care in the manufacture of such appliance and such duty calls for and requires the exercise of reasonable care in applying reasonable tests to detect defects and deficiencies in the appliance." See McPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 527; Quackenbush v. Ford Motor Co., 153 N.Y.S. 137; Olds Motor Works v. Shaffer, 145 Ky. 616; 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 560, and note.
Appellee earnestly feels that with the Heckel decision, supra, against the very appellant here, this court will hold that a manufacturer putting out automobiles and parts which, from common knowledge, will be used by purchasers, and from the nature of the thing manufactured and sold, is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril, when negligently made and the manufacturer knows that the product will be used by purchasers without testing its fitness, he owes a purchaser a duty to exercise care in making it or inspecting it in a manner above the average and we earnestly contend that the record in this case abundantly shows that no such inspection was had, that the taking of a few drillings from a whole shipment of parts and washing or cleaning and looking at them even though they didn't manufacture them, was an insufficient inspection.
It seems that the defendant's liability in a case exactly like the one at bar has been established in the courts of other states against this identical defendant, in a case where it would take a great deal more trouble to make the inspection than would have been necessary in the case at bar. The jury in this case had submitted to it the question of whether or not proper inspection had been made on the testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant. The law settled the question as to contractual relationship in a case against this very defendant, 39 A. L. R. 989.
Appellant cites and quotes from the cases in our state court as follows: Vicksburg v. Holmes, 106 Miss. 234; W. T. Pate v. Westbrook Elevator Co., 142 Miss. 419, 107 So. 552; Kilcrease v. Galtney Motor (Miss. 1928), 115 So. 193. We respectively submit that neither of the above cases are in point in the least degree.
The Vicksburg case was a case where the city changed the grade of a street and undertook to raise a church building and employed a contractor to do so, who did poor workmanship and used insufficient pillars so that surface water weakened the building and when a large number of people were in the church, who went to a funeral, the building collapsed. The court held that there was no element of deceit by the city or its agents. In fact we can't see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putman v. Erie City Manufacturing Company
...an emery wheel disintegrated. Mississippi law controlled. The Supreme Court of Mississippi had unequivocally held in Ford Motor Co. v. Myers, 1928, 151 Miss. 73, 117 So. 362, and in a number of earlier cases, that privity was a prerequisite to recovery against a manufacturer. Nevertheless, ......
-
Abendschein v. Farrell
...emery wheel distintegrated. Mississippi law controlled. The Supreme Court of Mississippi had unequivocally held in Ford Motor Co. v. Myers, 1928, 151 Miss. 73, 117 So. 362, and in a number of earlier cases, that privity was a prerequisite to recovery against a manufacturer. Nevertheless, ba......
-
Burkett v. Globe Indemnity Co
...an intrinsically and inherently dangerous instrumentality. Vicksburg Gas Co. v. Ferguson, 140 Miss. 543, 106 So. 258; Ford Motor Co. v. Myers, 151 Miss. 73, 117 So. 362; Moore v. Jefferson Distilling & Denaturing Co., So. 691; Bragdon v. Perkins-Campbell Co., 87 F. 109, 66 L. B. A. 924; McC......
-
Gordy v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation
...as above set forth. Pate Auto Co. v. Westbrook Elevator Co., 142 Miss. 419; Kilcrease v. Galtney Motor Co., 149 Miss. 703; Ford Motor Co. v. Myers, 151 Miss. 73; Pillars Reynolds Tobacco Co., 117 Miss. 490. The court was eminently correct in sustaining the motion of the defendant, Pan Ameri......
-
Ascertaining the laws of the several states: positivism and judicial federalism after Erie.
...static approach, see infra Part IV. 203 241 F.2d 906 (1st Cir. 1957). (284) Id. at 907. (285) Id. at 908 (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Myers, 117 So. 362 (Miss. 1928)). (286) Id. at 910. The First Circuit based its prediction, in part, on a relatively recent opinion by the Supreme Court of Miss......