Deffebach v. Lansburgh & Bro., 8926.
Decision Date | 29 June 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 8926.,8926. |
Citation | 150 F.2d 591 |
Parties | DEFFEBACH v. LANSBURGH & BRO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Francis J. Kelly, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Austin F. Canfield, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. William T. Hannan, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before MILLER, EDGERTON, and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
This appeal is from a directed verdict for the defendant in a suit for breach of warranty. Appellant bought a chenille lounging robe in appellee's store. She examined it for texture, color, style and design. About the third or fourth time she wore it she was badly burned. The undisputed testimony was that she waved or "fanned" a match after lighting a cigarette, that the robe caught fire, and that the flame spread with great rapidity, "quicker than you snap your fingers almost," in spite of immediate and vigorous efforts of several persons to put it out. A textile expert, who had experimented with a sample of the same material, testified that it had
The District of Columbia Code provides that 50 Stat. 33, D. C.Code, 1940, § 28-1115.
The robe was bought, as appellee concedes, for use as a lounging robe. This purpose was obvious and therefore known to the seller. Since the buyer was not expert in textiles, we cannot agree with the view that her examination of the robe ought to have revealed the fact that it would burn up in an instant if it came in contact with flame. We think she clearly relied on the seller's judgment that it was fit...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pabellon v. Grace Line
...Botti v. Venice Grocery Co., 309 Mass. 450, 35 N.E.2d 491, 135 A.L.R. 1387, with annotation at 1393; Deffebach v. Lansburgh & Bro., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 185, 150 F.2d 591, 168 A.L.R. 1052, with annotation at 1054, certiorari denied Lansburgh & Bro. v. Deffebach, 326 U.S. 772, 66 S.Ct. 177, 90 L.......
-
Patterson v. Central Mills, Inc.
...breach of implied warranty. See, e.g., Hollister v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 201 F.3d 731, 740-743 (6th Cir.2000); Deffebach v. Lansburgh & Bro., 150 F.2d 591, 591-592 (D.C.Cir.1945). D. Breach of Express Warranties/Failure to Conform to a Under O.R.C. § 2307.77, which codifies the common law c......
-
Frank R. Jelleff, Inc. v. Braden
...could not be liable to a customer for breach of warranty "under the language of this Court in Deffebach v. Lansburgh & Bro., 1945, 80 U.S.App. D.C. 185, 150 F.2d 591, 168 A.L.R. 1052."* Next, appellant challenged the ruling by which appellant's Indiana complaint against the manufacturers ha......
-
Howard v. McCrory Corp.
...Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Baker (D.Md.1947) 74 F.Supp. 809 at 810, where Judge Chestnut said, commenting on Deffebach v. Lansburgh & Bro. (1945) 80 U.S.App.D.C. 185, 150 F.2d 591:" * * * The court decided as a matter of law that if the robe caught fire and burned, as the witness testified, ......