EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION v. Columbus McKinnon Chain Co.
| Citation | 13 F.2d 128 |
| Parties | EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, Limited, v. COLUMBUS McKINNON CHAIN CO. |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1926 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Ulysses S. Thomas, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Ralph W. Dox, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.
Mitchell & Staples, of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendant.
Plaintiff insured the Retsof Mining Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act of this state (Consol. Laws, c. 67), and thereafter, and on April 19, 1923, three of its employees were killed when a chain they had been using to lower a large casting into a pit broke and caused the casting to fall. The awards out of the policy of insurance were paid, and plaintiff, under section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, became subrogated to any rights the beneficiaries may have had against defendant.
It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant manufactured the chain and sold it to a retail jobber at Buffalo, who acted for the purchaser, to which delivery was made by defendant, knowing that the chain would be used for lifting heavy objects weighing as much as six tons; that defendant represented or warranted that the chain which caused the disaster had a breaking strain of 25,000 pounds, and would safely lift or carry objects weighing as much as 6 tons; that the chain was negligently manufactured, and negligently tested, and was not manufactured of good and strong and proper material, to give it the represented straining capacity.
It is contended that defendant is not liable to third persons for the alleged inefficiency of the chains; the general rule being "that a manufacturer or seller is not liable to third persons, who have no contractual relations with him, for negligence in the construction, manufacture, or sale of articles manufactured or sold." There are, however, exceptions to this broad rule; e. g., where the article sold is inherently or imminently dangerous. The term "imminently dangerous" does not imply that the article sold must at all times be imminently dangerous, such as poisons or explosives are known to be. It suffices if the nature and quality of the thing sold is reasonably certain, as Judge Cardozo said in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. 382, 111 N. E. 1050, L. R. A. 1916F, 696, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 440, to place life or limb in peril, and was negligently made, for then it became a thing of danger.
The allegations of the bill, which must be assumed to be true, in my opinion, fall correctly within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCormick v. Lowe & Campbell Athletic Goods Co.
...... CAMPBELL ATHLETIC GOODS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas ... Motor Co., 44 F.2d 310; Employers' Lia. Assur. Corp. v. Columbus McKinnon Chain Co., 13 F.2d ......
-
West v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co.
...674 (7th Cir.); McKay v. Upson-Walton Co., 317 F.2d 826 (7th Cir.) (Swygert, J., concurring); Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd. v. Columbus McKinnon Chain Co., 13 F.2d 128 (W.D.N.Y.); Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319, 79 N.W.2d 688. See also Marker v. U......
-
Ex Parte Auxilio Mutuo
...substances held not to be inherently dangerous within the meaning of the rule include a chain, Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Columbus McKinnon Chain Co., D.C.N.Y., 13 F.2d 128 [(1926)]; a bar of soap, Barrango v. Hinckley Rendering Co., 230 Mass. 93, 119 N.E. 746 [(1918)]; a cast-iro......
-
Defore v. Bourjois, Inc.
...or substances held not to be inherently dangerous within the meaning of the rule include a chain, Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Columbus McKinnon Chain Co., D.C.N.Y., 13 F.2d 128; a bar of soap, Barrango v. Hinckley Rendering Co., 230 Mass. 93, 119 N.E. 746; a cast-iron pipe elbow, L......