Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 July 1943 |
Docket Number | 29013. |
Citation | 139 P.2d 706,18 Wn.2d 458 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | BOCK et ux. v. TRUCK & TRACTOR, Inc. |
Department 1.
Action by John Bock and another against Truck & Tractor, Inc., for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed with direction.
Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; William E Campbell, judge.
Roy C Stroud, Cheney & Hutcheson, and John Gavin, all of Yakima for appellants.
Theodore B. Bruener, of Aberdeen, and Neal, Bonneville & Hughes, of Tacoma, for respondent.
This was an action for the recovery of damages for personal injuries. The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer to the complaint, concededly upon the ground that the pleading did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiffs declined to plead further, and the court thereupon entered judgment dismissing the action. From that judgment, plaintiffs appealed.
Since the demurrer admits the truth of all allegations of fact well pleaded in the complaint, such allegations must now be considered as constituting the sole and actual facts in this case. We shall set forth certain portions of the complaint in substance only, but for the sake of accuracy will quote directly those paragraphs, or parts thereof, which contain the essence of the alleged cause of action.
Appellants are husband and wife. Inasmuch as the wife is the particular complainant in this action, we shall hereinafter refer to her as though she were the sole appellant. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the business of repairing, reconditioning, and selling motor vehicles for use and travel upon the public highways.
On or about November 18, 1940, respondent entered into negotiations with one J. J. LaVergne, with the view of selling to LaVergne a certain 'used' automobile truck which respondent then owned. The complaint (which uses the term 'defendant' to designate the respondent herein) alleges in paragraph 4:
In consequence of such negotiations and representations, an agreement was effected whereby on November 18, 1940, respondent sold and delivered the truck to LaVergne.
The complaint then continues, in paragraph 5:
Paragraph 6 of the complaint alleges:
Then follows paragraph 7 of the complaint which reads:
On December 13, 1940, twenty-five days after the purchase of the truck by LaVergne, his agent and employee was operating it in the usual, ordinary, and customary manner on the streets of the city of Yakima. Appellant, Jane Bock, was at the time a passenger in the truck, upon the invitation and with the consent and permission of LaVergne. In the course of such operation, and owing to the defective and dangerous condition of the truck as described above, the left front spring broke completely through, forcing the spring down upon the front axle, thus jamming the axle and steering assembly and causing the truck to lurch suddenly to the right, out of control of the driver, against an automobile lawfully parked upon the street. In consequence of the impact, appellant was thrown violently in and about the truck and sustained severe injuries. Prior to the time of the collision, neither the driver of the truck nor appellant was aware of its defective and dangerous condition.
Epitomizing the factual content of the complaint as set forth above at length, we reproduce the essential elements as they appear therein in their natural order and relation: Respondent is a dealer engaged in the business of repairing, reconditioning and selling secondhand automobiles. It owned a secondhand truck which was in a highly defective and dangerous condition, unfit for use upon the public highways. The particular defect, a cracked and broken spring, was of such character as likely would cause the truck to collapse if it should be used in a normal manner on the highway. The defect was ascertainable by the dealer, however, by the exercise of ordinary care in making a reasonable inspection of the vehicle. The dealer attempted to recondition the truck for sale and use upon the streets and highways, but failed to remedy the defect. For the purpose of effecting a ready sale of the motor vehicle, the dealer thereafter represented to a prospective purchaser that it had been completely overhauled, was in safe condition for use, and carried a socalled 'new truck guarantee.' The purchaser was ignorant of the defect and bought the truck in reliance upon the dealer's representations. The dealer knew that the purchaser was unaware of the defective and dangerous condition of the chattel but failed to inform him of it. Within a period of twenty-five days after the sale of the truck by the dealer, it collapsed while in normal use. The collapse was the direct result of the cracked and broken spring. In consequence of the unexpected performance of the truck immediately following the collapse of the spring, a passenger in the vehicle was injured.
The passenger was not a party to the contract of purchase of the truck and there was no relationship of privity between such third person and the dealer.
The question presented by these facts is whether, under such circumstances, the third person may recover from the dealer damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of the defective condition of the truck.
As stated by counsel, this court has never expressed itself upon the question whether a secondhand dealer in motor vehicles...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...Blickman, Inc., v. Chilton, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 646;Reusch v. Ford Motor Co., 196 Wash. 213, 82 P.2d 556;Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc., 18 Wash.2d 458, 139 P.2d 706;Flies v. Fox Brothers Buick Co., 196 Wis. 196, 218 N.W. 855, 60 A.L.R. 357;Marsh Wood Products Co. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co......
-
Simonetta v. Viad Corp.
...safety switch on truck liable for failure to warn of potential hazard, though he traded the truck "as is"); Bock v. Truck & Tractor, 18 Wash.2d 458, 469, 139 P.2d 706 (1943) (citing Restatement of Torts § 388 (1934), in holding dealer in secondhand vehicles who undertakes to refurbish such ......
-
Freeman v. Navarre
...dangerous instrumentalities; Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409, 15 P.2d 1118, 88 A.L.R. 521; Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc., 18 Wash.2d 458, 139 P.2d 706. In a very recent case, McAfee v. Cargill, Inc., D.C.S.D.Cal.1954, 121 F.Supp. 5, the principle of the Mazetti case has......
-
Kothe v. Tysdale
...473, 294 N.W. 479; Jones v. Raney Chevrolet Co., 213 N.C. 775, 197 S.E. 757; Id., 217 N.C. 693, 9 S.E.2d 395; Bock v. Truck & Tractor, Inc., 18 Wash.2d 458, 139 P.2d 706; Flies v. Fox Bros. Buick Co., 196 Wis. 196, 218 N.W. 855, 60 A.L.R. 357. As to a lessor's liability, see Ferraro v. Tayl......