Bowen v. Western Auto Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 9159,9159 |
| Citation | 273 So.2d 546 |
| Parties | James T. BOWEN v. WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Henson Moore, Dale, Owen, Richardson, Taylor, & Mathews, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Kenneth Fink, Denham Springs, for appellees.
Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and CRAIN, JJ.
This case involves a claim for damages for personal injuries received by the purchaser of a riding lawn mower against the manufacturer, retailer, and their liability insurers. The trial court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the retailer and its insurer in the amount of $3500.00 for personal injuries, $2432.00 for loss of wages, and $906.02 for medical expenses, while at the same time dismissing plaintiff's claim against the manufacturer and its insurer. From this judgment, the retailer, Western Auto Supply Company, and its insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company, have appealed.
The pertinent facts are as follows: Plaintiff, James T. Bowen, purchased a Wizard riding lawn mower from Western Auto Supply Company. The mower was manufactured by Gilson Brothers Company. Testimony elicited at the trial revealed that this particular type mower was distributed by Gilson Brothers to Western Auto Supply Company in a partially unassembled state because of convenience in shipping. One of the items not factory assembled was a grass deflector toe guard which attached to the housing of the mower itself. This device is installed by bolting it to the blade housing .
Without installation of this device, the portion of the blade housing to which it was to be connected would not completely cover the rotating lawn mower blades creating a hazardous condition involving the exposed blade.
The plaintiff-appellee purchased this mower on lay-away and the record reveals that there is a factual dispute regarding whether or not the mower was to be delivered to Bowen, the plaintiff, in an assembled or unassembled condition.
Officials of Western Auto testified that they had not agreed to assemble the mower prior to delivery, while Bowen testified that there was such an agreement. Western Auto produced the deliveryman who testified he delivered the lawn mower to Bowen's house in a crate unassembled; however, Bowen produced numerous witnesses who testified that although they did not see the actual delivery, they did view the mower just following the delivery and it was fully assembled. Several witnesses testified that the mower even contained oil and gas on delivery. Bowen testified that although the mower was delivered around 3:00 p.m. on February 27, he did not actually see the mower until late that night when he came home from work. At that time the mower was assembled and he actually started the engine before retiring for the night. He further testified that he saw an envelope sitting on the seat of the mower which contained some documents, nuts, bolts and other parts. He removed the package, but paid no particular attention to its contents.
Because of adverse weather conditions, Bowen was unable to use the mower for approximately one month after the delivery. While using the mower for the first time, the mower wheels began to slip and spin on the wet ground and became entrenched in a muddy portion of the lawn. In order to start the mower moving forward again, Bowen testified that he placed his feet on the ground next to the sides of the blade housing and straightened up at the same time lifting the mower with his arms to try to pull it out. While in this position the blade came into contact with his right foot causing gashes on his foot and ankle.
As the basis of his suit against the manufacturer, Bowen alleges the negligent and faulty design of the mower, and failure to give adequate warning of the dangerous condition created by the unassembled grass deflector toe guard. Under the jurisprudence of this state the manufacturer does owe a duty to the purchaser to take reasonable care in designing and manufacturing its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poland v. Beaird-Poulan, Civ. A. No. 78-1511.
...v. Albany Machine & Supply Company, 339 So.2d 458 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ refused, 341 So.2d 419 (1976); Bowen v. Western Auto Supply Company, 273 So.2d 546 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973); Gauthier v. Sperry Rand, Inc., 252 So.2d 129 (La.App. 3d Cir.) writ refused, 253 So.2d 382 (La. Although the......
-
Leonard v. Albany Mach. & Supply Co.
...all reasonably foreseeable users of its product a duty to adequately design and manufacture that product. Bowen v. Western Auto Supply Company, 273 So.2d 546 (La.App.1st Cir. 1973); Gauthier v. Sperry Rand, Inc., 252 So.2d 129 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1971), writ refused, 259 La. 940, 253 So.2d 382......