Driver v. Snow, 391
| Decision Date | 12 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 391,391 |
| Citation | 245 N.C. 223,95 S.E.2d 519 |
| Parties | Woodrow W. DRIVER v. Orville SNOW, Trading as Hanes Hardware and Appliance Company. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Deal, Hutchins and Minor, by Roy L. Deal, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff, appellant.
Parker & Lucas, Winston-Salem, for defendant, appellee.
At the time the defendant bought the secondhand stove he bought a water tank which had been attached to the stove. The plaintiff bought the stove knowing it was secondhand and knowing it had been used to heat water. He declined to buy the tank. After the purchase he loaded the stove on his truck, took it home, removed the pipes which permitted the water to circulate between the tank and the stove, and plugged the holes left by the removal of the pipes. He installed the stove, built a fire in it, and in about 20 minutes it exploded, seriously and permanently injuring him.
The evidence is sufficient to permit the inference the explosion was caused by the presence of water in the jacket. It is sufficient to permit the inference the water was there when plaintiff bought it. There is no evidence, however, the defendant had such knowledge. There is evidence the stove, though secondhand, had been recently polished; but whether by the defendant or by the person from whom he purchased it, does not appear. Even if polished by the defendant, and there is no evidence to that effect, that would show at most some opportunity to discover the presence of water. But after all, the plaintiff had the real opportunity to make such discovery. He loaded the stove, carried it home, unloaded it, removed the pipes and sealed up the water jacket.
The plaintiff contends, however, that under the circumstances the defendant is liable by reason of the implied warranty that the stove was safe for the purpose for which it was bought. 'Implied warranty cannot extend to defects which are visible and alike within the knowledge of the vendee and vendor, or when the sources of information are alike open and accessible to each party.' Hudgins v. Perry, 29 N.C. 102; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Gibson, 5 Cir., 232 F.2d 13. 'Where the purchaser is not deceived by any fraudulent representations and demands no warranty, the law presumes that he depends on his own judgment in the transaction and applies the maxim, caveat emptor.' Am.Jur., 46, p. 521. 'It is generally held upon the sale of a designated, specific article sold as secondhand, that there is no implied warranty as to its quality or fitness for the purpose intended, at least where it is subject to inspection at the time of sale.' Am. Jur., 46, p. 454. 'There is no implied warranty where the buyer has knowledge equal to that of the seller * * * the presence of the goods at the time of sale open and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinson v. Jefferson
...265 N.C. 362, 144 S.E.2d 138 (1965); Insurance Co. v. Don Allen Chevrolet Co., 253 N.C. 243, 116 S.E.2d 780 (1960); Driver v. Snow, 245 N.C. 223, 95 S.E.2d 519 (1956). Cf. G.S. § We believe that many of the mutual mistake cases discussed Supra were in fact embryo implied warranty cases. For......
-
Kientz v. Carlton, 97
...no greater duty would rest upon the seller than upon the manufacturer of such a machine. While the recent case of Driver v. Snow, 245 N.C. 223, 95 S.E. 2d 519, was based on alleged implied warranty, the principles as stated by Higgins, J., would seem equally applicable when a remote user gr......
-
Performance Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 84
...examines the goods as fully as he desires, G.S. § 25--2--316(3)(b), and has knowledge equal to that of the seller, Driver v. Snow, 245 N.C. 223, 95 S.E.2d 519 (1956), this principle is not applicable to the facts here because the contract of sale imposed on the seller the obligation to deli......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Don Allen Chevrolet Co., 245
...they come of his own wrong and he cannot recover damages for them as consequences of the breach of warranty.' In Driver v. Snow, 245 N.C. 223, 95 S.E.2d 519, 521, the plaintiff, based on alleged breach of implied warranty, sought to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an ex......