Statler v. George A. Ray Mfg. Co.

Decision Date18 June 1909
PartiesSTATLER v. GEORGE A. RAY MFG. CO.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by Ellsworth M. Statler against the George A. Ray Manufacturing Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Division (125 App. Div. 69,109 N. Y. Supp. 172), and defendant appeals. Reversed.Charles F. Tabor, for appellant.

George P. Keating, for respondent.

HISCOCK, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through the explosion of a large coffee urn, whereby the plaintiff and another were severely scalded and a third person killed. The defendant was engaged in manufacturing and vending such urns for use in hotels. They were constructed in what was called a ‘battery of three.’ The central urn or boiler was equipped with a coil of pipe through which steam was driven, whereby water was heated which was siphoned into the urn on either side where the coffee was made. In the case of the appliance in question, the central urn was of considerable diameter, and perhaps three or four feet in height, and on the occasion of practically its first use its bottom was partially driven out by force of steam and water and the accident to plaintiff caused. The defendant did not sell this urn to the plaintiff, but to a jobber, who in turn sold the same to a company of which plaintiff was an officer. Thus there were no contractual relations between the parties to this action, but plaintiff instituted and thus far has succeeded in his action on the theory that defendant well knew the purposes for which its urn was to be used; that the latter was of such a character inherently that, when applied to the purposes for which it was designed, it was liable to become a source of great danger to many people if not carefully and properly constructed; that the defendant negligently and carelessly constructed it so that it was imminently dangerous when employed as intended to be; and that as the natural and direct result of this negligent and heedless conduct the urn exploded and the plaintiff was injured.

No exceptions were taken which challenge the correctness of the instructions given by the trial judge in his charge upon this substantial question of the case; but, without attempting to review with exactness everything which he said upon this subject, we think it may be said that he submitted the case with substantial accuracy on this theory defining the limits within which defendant might be held liable and excluding as a ground of liability any accident resulting from unskillful installation or improper use of the urn. We think further that there was evidence which permitted a jury to say that the defendant, knowing the uses for which the urn was intended when it marketed the same, was guilty of, and of course chargeable with knowledge of, defective and unsafe construction. This leaves on this branch of the case simply the question whether a manufacturer and vendor of such an inherently dangerous appliance as this was may be made liable to a third party on the theory invoked by plaintiff, and we think that this question must be regarded as settled in the latter's favor by the following authorities: Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397, 57 Am. Dec. 455;Coughtry v. Globe Woolen Co., 56 N. Y. 124, 15 Am. Rep. 387;Devlin v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 470, 474-474,42 Am. Rep. 311;Davies v. Pelham Hod Elevating Co., 146 N. Y. 363, 41 N. E. 88;Torgesen v. Schultz, 192 N. Y. 156, 84 N. E. 956,18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 726;Connors v. Great Northern Elevator Co., 90 App. Div. 311,85 N. Y. Supp. 644, affirmed in 180 N. Y. 509, 72 N. E. 1140;Kahner v. Otis Elevator Co., 96 App. Div. 169,89 N. Y. Supp. 185;Huset v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 120 Fed. 865, 872, 57 C. C. A. 237, 61 L. R. A. 303;Keep v. Nat. Tube Co. (C. C.) 154 Fed. 121, 127;Marquardt v. Ball Engine Co., 122 Fed. 374, 58 C. C. A. 462; Thompson on Negligence, § 825 et seq.

The Torgesen Case is the last decision by this court on this general subject. That action was one by the plaintiff to recover against the defendant for personal injuries caused by the bursting of a siphon bottle of aërated water filled and put on the market by the latter. The plaintiff enjoyed no contractual relation whatever with the defendant, and the action was maintained on the same principles urged in this action. It was in that case in substance held that if a vendor had knowledge that the bottles used for aërated water, when charged at a certain pressure were liable to explode unless first subjected to an adequate test, and there was evidence that the test used by such vendor was insufficient to render it reasonablycertain that bottles charged at such pressure would not explode when used as customers might be expected to use them, the question of the defendant's negligence should be submitted to the jury. The action thus was based upon no contractual relation, but upon the ground of negligence. As the basis in part at least of the decision, Judge Willard Bartlett, writing in behalf of the court, quoted with approval the rule laid down by Lord Justice Cotton in Heaven v. Pender, L. R. (11 Q. B. D.) 503, as follows; ‘Any one who leaves a dangerous instrument, as a gun, in such a way as to cause danger, or who without due warning supplies to others for use an instrument or thing which to his knowledge, from its construction or otherwise, is in such a condition as to cause danger, not necessarily incident to the use of such an instrument or thing, is liable for injury caused to others by reason of his negligent act.’ This rule distinctly recognizes the principle that, in the case of an article of an inherently dangerous nature, a manufacturer may become liable for a negligent construction which, when added to the inherent character of the appliance, makes it imminently dangerous, and causes or contributes to a resulting injury not necessarily incident to the use of such an article if properly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Foley v. Pittsburgh-des Moines Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 17, 1949
    ...Inc., 167 Misc. 338, 3 N.Y.S.2d 918; Noone v. Fred Perlberg, Inc., 268 App.Div. 149, 49 N.Y.S.2d 460; Statler v. George A. Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 88 N.E. 1063; Smith v. Peerless Glass Co., Inc., 259 N.Y. 292, 181 N.E. 576. See other cases collected in 164 A.L.R. 587, note 19. In Pennsy......
  • Home Warranty Corp. v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • December 11, 1985
    ...(1923), casual bystanders, see e.g., McLeod v. Linde Air Products Co., 318 Mo. 397, 1 S.W.2d 122 (1927); Statler v. George A. Ray Manufacturing Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 88 N.E. 1063 (1909) (dictum); Hopper v. Charles Cooper & Co., 104 N.J.L. 93, 139 A. 19 (Ct. of Error & Appeal 1927), and others ......
  • Zesch v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 6, 1944
    ...... Link v. Hathway, . 143 Mo.App. 502, 127 S.W. 913; Goransson v. Riter-Conley. Mfg. Co., 186 Mo. 300, 85 S.W. 338; Kerr v. Bush, 215 S.W. 393. (4) Instruction 2 was proper in. ... Co., 217 N.Y. l.c. 389, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A. 1916F,. 696, Ann. Cas. 1016C, 440; Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., . 195 N.Y. 478, 88 N.E. 1063. (3) Plaintiff was not required to. prove that it ......
  • Burneson v. Zumwalt Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 16, 1941
    ...... have been confined to the specific act of negligence pleaded. Zasemowich v. American Mfg. Co., 213 S.W. 799;. Munsey v. Eagle Packing Co., 50 S.W.2d 754;. Pointer v. Mountain Ry. ...Y. l. c. 389; Johnson v. Cadillac Motor Car Co., 261 F. 878; Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 88 N.E. 1063; Keep v. Natl. Tube Co., 154 F. 121; U.S. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A theory of adjudication: law as magic.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 41 No. 4, September 2008
    • September 22, 2008
    ...Rosaldo, supra note 53, at 189. (69.) MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050, 1052 (N.Y. 1916) (citing Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 88 N.E. 1063 (N.Y. 1909); Devlin v. Smith, 11 Abb. N. Cas. 322 (N.Y. (70.) Compare MacPherson, 111 N.E. at 1053, with supra note 67 and accompanying text. (7......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT