Amason v. Ford Motor Co., 7867.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7867.,7867. |
| Citation | 80 F.2d 265 |
| Parties | AMASON v. FORD MOTOR CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Stephen C. Upson, of Athens, Ga., and Horace M. Holden, Hugh Howell, and Allen Post, all of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Frank C. Tindall, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant brought this suit, on behalf of herself and two minor children, in a state court to recover damages in the sum of $50,000, for the death of the husband and father. It was removed to the federal court by appellee, and then dismissed on demurrer. This appeal followed.
In substance, the petition alleges that on October 30, 1933, the deceased purchased from the Elbert Sales Company, of Elberton, Ga., a Tudor Ford De Luxe, 8-cylinder sedan automobile. The automobile was designed, constructed, and placed in the hands of a dealer by appellee. It had only one door on each side, which was hinged in the rear. The doors were equipped with two catches, operated by a single curved handle, and, unless the doors were slammed hard, the second catch would not engage. While only the first catch was engaged, the door would rattle when the car was going at a high speed, from the effect of the wind. If the door was opened while the car was running at high speed, the wind would push it back against the body of the car with great force. On March 23, 1934, about 7 or 8 o'clock at night, the deceased was riding in the automobile on the highway, seated on the right side of the front seat. The car was proceeding at the rate of about 35 miles an hour. A strong wind was blowing. He opened the door, using the handle provided for that purpose, with the intention of slamming it, but his hand was caught under the curved handle and he was jerked out of his seat by the action of the wind on the door and thrown to the roadway. A following automobile ran over him and killed him. The negligence alleged relates purely to the design of the automobile in having the door hinged at the rear instead of the front and as to the size, shape and position of the handle of the catch. It is not charged that any defective material was used in constructing the car or that any part of it broke.
An automobile is not considered in law as dangerous per se. Huddy, Ency. Automobile Law, Vols. 1-2 p. 180, and authorities cited. It is a general rule that the manufacturer of an article not dangerous per se is not liable to a third person having no contractual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. General Motors Corp., 87-1750
...be misused or because plaintiff should have been aware of the alleged defect and was thus solely at fault. See, e.g., Amason v. Ford Motor Co., 80 F.2d 265 (5th Cir.1935) (alleged defective design was passenger door hinged at the rear and a door handle which could catch a passenger's hand, ......
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...really decided for the defendant on the ground of want of negligence. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Baridon, 73 F.2d 26. Amason v. Ford Motor Co. 80 F.2d 265. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Heine, 128 F.2d 657. Rotche v. Motor Co. 358 Ill. 507. Stevens v. Allis-Chalmers Manuf. Co. 151 Kans. 638. ......
-
Tayer v. York Ice Machinery Corp.
...436, 70 P. 358; Foster v. Ford Motor Co., 246 P. 945; Windram Mfg. Co. v. Boston Blacking Co., 239 Mass. 123, 131 N.E. 454; Amason v. Ford Motor Co., 80 F.2d 265. (3) court erred in submitting the case to the jury, because there was no evidence that defendant was negligent. (a) Mr. Manns' o......
-
Texas Bitulithic Co. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
...are: Yaun v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 253 Wis. 558, 34 N.W.2d 853; Frank v. Cresent Truck Co., 3 Cir., 244 F.2d 101; and Amason v. Ford Motor Co., 5 Cir., 80 F.2d 265. In its argument appellee asserts that most of the thirty-six cases cited by appellant have to do with negligence due to def......