Heckel v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1925
• Docket Number: No. 56.,56.
• Citation: 128 A. 242
• Parties: HECKEL v. FORD MOTOR CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

128 A. 242

HECKEL

v. FORD MOTOR CO.

No. 56.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 16, 1925.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Charles B. Heckel against the Ford Motor Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff against the defendant named, and it appeals. Affirmed.

Theodore Rurode and David P. Edwards, both of Jersey City, for appellant.

John Winans, of Jersey City, and Samuel Schleimer, of Elizabeth, for respondent.

CAMPBELL, J. This is an appeal from a judgment, entered in the Supreme Court, in favor of respondent, upon a verdict rendered at the Union circuit. The action was against appellant and Eldred R. Crow, to recover damages for personal injuries and loss sustained by respondent through the alleged bursting of a pulley attached to a Fordson tractor, purchased by respondent from Crowshortly before the happening. At the time of the happening, power from the motor of the tractor was being applied and transmitted to a circular saw by and through a belt running over a pulley attached to the tractor and over another pulley attached to the saw. At the saw, and as a part thereof, was a flywheel. The saw was distant about 25 feet from the tractor. The saw, flywheel, and saw pulley were not products of the appellant. The tractor had been running but a short time when there was what was described as an explosion, and respondent was struck by a piece of metal and his arm so injured as to require amputation. The tractor pulley was found to be broken, the gasoline tank and carburetor broken off, and certain housing of the tractor broken. The flywheel of the saw was later also found to be broken.

There was testimony tending to show a defect in the tractor pulley; a dark or blank place showing an old defect against a bright or white portion showing the fresh break. There was also testimony tending to show that the initial difficulty was at the tractor pulley, in that immediately after the so-called explosion the belt jumped off the tractor pulley and the saw, with its flywheel still intact, continued revolving. During the trial a nonsuit was directed in favor of the defendant Crow, and the Ford Motor Company is the sole appellant.

There are five specific grounds of appeal:

First. Because the court denied the motion for a nonsuit. The grounds for such motion were: (1) That there was no proof of a contractual relation between the Ford Motor Company and the plaintiff. (2) Because there is no allegation that because the Ford Motor Company sold to a dealer it has any liability to an ultimate consumer. (3) Because there is no proof of any negligence by the Ford Motor Company.

Second. Because the court denied the motion to direct a verdict in favor of the Ford Motor Company. The grounds for such motion were: (1) Because there is no evidence of any negligence of the Ford Motor Company. (2) As a manufacturer only it had no contractual relation with the plaintiff and owed him no duty growing out of such a relation. (3) There is no proof that the pulley or tractor was defective when it left the Ford Motor Company, or when it was sold to Crow, or when it was delivered to the plaintiff. (4) Because no cause of action has been made out against the Ford Motor Company. (5) Because according to the uncontradicted evidence the Ford Motor Company submitted the product to all of the inspections known to the trade, and that was the most of defendant's duty which it owed to plaintiff.

There was no error in either the refusal to nonsuit or direct a verdict. There was evidence from which the jury could find that the bursting of the tractor pulley was the proximate cause of respondent's injury. There was also evidence from which the jury could find that there was a defect in the pulley; that is, the darkened metal in the break indicating an old break as against the bright metal showing a new break. A contractual relation by appellant with respondent was not necessary to charge the former with responsibility.

The manufacturer of an article, not inherently dangerous, but which may become dangerous when put to the use for which it is intended, owes to the public the duty of employing care, skill, and diligence in its manufacture and of using reasonable diligence to see that it is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was intended.

In Van Winkle v. American Steam-Boiler Co., 52 N. J. Law, 240, 19 A. 472, it was held in cases where an act is highly dangerous, if not done with care and skill, "to the persons or lives of one or more persons known or unknown, the law ipso facto imposes as a public duty the obligation to exercise such care and skill." This rule has been persistently and consistently followed in this state. Styles v. Long Co., 70 N. J. Law, 301, 57 A. 448; Guinn v. Del. & Atl. Telephone Co., 72 N. J. Law, 276, 62 A. 412, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 988, 111 Am. St. Rep. 668; Piraccini v. Director General, 95 N. J. Law, 114, 112 A. 311; Republic of France v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 96...