Craig v. Baker & Holmes Co.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1923 |
| Citation | 96 So. 93,85 Fla. 373 |
| Parties | CRAIG et al. v. BAKER & HOLMES CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Pierre Branning, Judge.
Action by Charles L. Craig and others, suing for the use of Charles L. Craig, against the Baker & Holmes Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
On demurrer, declaration tested by weakest allegations. On demurrer a declaration is tested by its weakest allegations.
Manufacturer held to higher degree of care than dealer in putting dangerous compound on market. A manufacturer is held to a higher degree of care than a dealer in putting dangerous compounds upon the market. A manufacturer knows the ingredients of his compound, but a dealer, who occupies the same position practically as a retailer, is not presumed to know the formula by which the article is made, or whether it is inherently dangerous.
Dealer not obliged to test articles packed or manufactured by others to discover latent danger or defects. A dealer purchasing an article of commerce from a manufacturer is under no obligation to test articles packed or manufactured by others for the purpose of discovering latent dangers or defects.
Declaration in action by employer against dealer for injuries to employees by explosion of material furnished held insufficient to state cause of action. The plaintiffs contractors, purchased from the defendant, a dealer in building materials, certain material to be applied to the inside wall of a cistern. The dealer was not alleged to be the manufacturer of the material nor that it knew the ingredients of the compound. The plaintiffs furnished the material to their workmen, who were injured by an explosion of the material while it was being applied to the walls of the cistern; the explosion being caused by lowering a lighted lantern into the cistern while the work of applying the material was in progress. Held, that a declaration in an action by the employer against the dealer for damages for the injuries sustained by the employees of the plaintiff alleging the above recited facts stated no cause of action.
Hudson & Cason, of Miami, for plaintiffs in error.
Price & Price, of Miami, for defendant in error.
This was an action by C. L. Craig and R. B. Parramore for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by two of their employees resulting from the use of certain materials alleged to have been furnished by the plaintiffs and which were alleged to have been dangerous and unsafe to persons applying it to the purpose for which such material was obtained.
The plaintiffs were contractors and were engaged under contract with Bookwalter to build a cistern which was required to be water-tight. The plaintiff supplied to their employees a certain material, the nature of which they knew nothing about, to be applied to the interior surface of the cistern walls to make it water-tight. While the employees were applying the material, a lighted lantern was lowered into the cistern and an explosion occurred, burning the employees severely. It is alleged that 'because of the dangerous nature and composition of the said material' the explosion was caused. It is alleged in the second count of the declaration that while one employee was applying the material he became 'helpless and unconscious,' and another employee went into the cistern to assist the former, the second employee requested that a lighted lantern be lowered into the cistern, which was done, and the explosion occurred.
The declaration alleges that the plaintiffs applied to the defendant to supply material to be used and applied to the inside of the cistern for the purpose of making it water-tight. The defendant supplied the material knowing the purpose for which it was to be used, but did not inform plaintiffs of the 'nature and character of the material,' and they gave it to the workmen to be applied to the walls not knowing of the dangerous nature and composition of the material, which 'could not be used in a cistern without great danger to the health and life of persons in such cistern.'
The plaintiffs seek damages for money they were obliged to spend for medical attention and treatment of the employees, and for damages and compensation they have paid for the injuries sustained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Young v. State
-
Foche v. Napa Home & Garden, Inc., CASE NO: 8:14-cv-2871-T-26TGW
...Inc., 506 So.2d 7, 10 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App. 1987); Odum v. Gulf Tire & Supply Co., 196 F.Supp. 35, 36 (N.D. Fla. 1961); and Craig v. Baker & Holmes, 96 So. 93 (Fla. 1923). Florida law is clear that a retailer does not have a duty to inspect for latent defects. K-Mart, 506 So.2d at 9 n.3 (citin......
- Suttle v. State