Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson
Decision Date | 09 March 1915 |
Docket Number | 187. |
Parties | CADILLAC MOTOR CAR CO. v. JOHNSON. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
William Van Dyke, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff in error.
Homer J. Borst, of Schenectady, N.Y. (A. J. Nellis, of Albany N.Y., of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
In March, 1909, Johnson, the plaintiff below, bought of a dealer an automobile known as the Cadillac motor model 30 manufactured by the defendant. In July of the same year while driving at from 12 to 15 miles an hour, the front right wheel broke, the car turned over, and Johnson sustained most serious injuries. He brought this suit to recover damages therefor, charging the defendant with simple negligence in respect to the wheel. There can be no question that the wheel was made of dead and 'dozy' wood, quite insufficient for its purposes.
There was no contractual relation between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant bought the wheels it used of the Schwarz Company and in its prospectus stated:
The plaintiff said of this prospectus that he had 'looked it over' before he bought the car.
The trial judge proceeded throughout the case on the theory that, though an automobile is not inherently a dangerous thing, it becomes so if fitted with a weak and insufficient wheel, and if the defendant knew, or ought to have discovered, that the front right wheel was such, then, especially in view of its prospectus, it was liable in damages to the plaintiff, although it had no contractual relations with him.
We do not understand this to be the law. So far as third parties are concerned, the liability of manufacturers is as follows:
One who manufactures articles inherently dangerous, e.g., poisons, dynamite, gunpowder, torpedoes, bottles of water under gas pressure, is liable in tort to third parties which they injure, unless he prove that he has exercised reasonable care with reference to the article manufactured. Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397, 57 Am.Dec. 455; Torgesen v. Schultz, 192 N.Y. 156, 84 N.E. 956, 18 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, 127 Am.St.Rep. 894; Willson v. Faxon, 208 N.Y. 108, 101 N.E. 799, 47 L.R.A.(N.S.) 693, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 49. In the Torgesen Case Willard Bartlett, J., said:
'It is manifest that there was no contract relation between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the defendant is sought to be held liable under the doctrine of Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397, and similar cases, based upon the duty of the vendor of an article dangerous in its nature, or likely to become so in the course of the ordinary usage to be contemplated by the vendor, either to exercise due care to warn users of the danger, or to take reasonable care to prevent the article sold from proving dangerous when subjected only to customary usage. The principle of law invoked is that which was well stated 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."
On the other hand, one who manufactures articles dangerous only if defectively made, or installed, e.g., tables, chairs, pictures or mirrors hung on the walls, carriages, automobiles, and so on, is not liable to third parties for injuries caused by them, except in case of willful injury or fraud. Loop v. Litchfield, 42 N.Y. 351, 1 Am.Rep. 513; Losee v. Clute, 51 N.Y. 494, 10 Am.Rep. 638; Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Co., 183 N.Y. 78, 75 N.E. 1098, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 303, 111 Am.St.Rep. 691, 5 Ann.Cas. 124. In the latter case Vann, J., said:
These distinctions are recognized in Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U.S. 195, 204, 25 L.Ed. 621; Huset v. Case Threshing Co., 120 F. 865, 57 C.C.A. 237, 61 L.R.A. 303; Pennsylvania Railway Co. v. Hummel, 167 F. 89. In the first of these cases Mr. Justice Clifford says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sutton v. Otis Elevator Co.
... ... S. L. R. Co., 99 P. 676 (Utah); Richards v. O. S ... L. R. Co., 123 P. 933 (Utah); Johnson v. Silver King ... Consolidated Mining Co., 179 P. 61 (Utah) ... The ... cause of ... 1104, 122 N.W ... 628; Queen of the Pacific, etc., 25 F. 610; Olds Motor ... Works v. Schaffer, 140 S.W. 1047; Johnson v ... Cadillac Motor Co., 261 F. 878; Kahner ... ...
-
Hammond-Knowlton v. United States
...seriously incorrect, it does not bind us. Cf. Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed. 1152; Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson, 2 Cir., 221 F. 801, L.R.A.1915E, 287, Ann.Cas.1917E, 581; Cf. Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U.S. 218, 220 et seq., 49 S.Ct. 310, 73 L.Ed. For th......
-
McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
... ... Mo. 79, 256 S.W. 169; Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 496, ... 141 S.W. 650; Johnson v. Cadillac Motor Co., 221 F ... 801, 261 F. 878; Monroe v. Railroad Co., 297 Mo ... 633, ... ...
-
Department of Water and Power v. Anderson
...are almost unanimous in holding that an automobile is not ordinarily a dangerous instrumentality. Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson, 2 Cir., 221 F. 801, 802, L.R.A.1915E, 287, Ann.Cas.1917 E, 581; annotation, 16 A.L.R. 270. Compare District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63, 51 S.Ct. 52, 75......