Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Watson

• Decision Date: 15 January 1942
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 757.
• Citation: 5 So.2d 639,242 Ala. 181
• Parties: JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. v. WATSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

5 So.2d 639

242 Ala. 181

JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. v. WATSON.

6 Div. 757.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 15, 1942

London & Yancey, Geo. W. Yancey, and Fred G. Koenig, Sr., all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Taylor & Higgins and Waldrop Windham, all of Birmingham, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

This is an action on the case by the infant daughter of the lessee of one of the apartments in the Manchester Terrace Apartments in the City of Birmingham, against the lessor, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a consequence of a folding bed in the apartment on which she slept coming loose and collapsing, and enfolding the plaintiff in said bed.

The case was submitted to the jury on "Count A" of the complaint added thereto by amendment, and defendant's plea of the general issue, pleaded in short by consent with leave to give in evidence any matter which, if well pleaded would be a defense, with like leave to the plaintiff to reply. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $1,750, hence this appeal.

Said Count A averred, as matter of inducement, that the defendant was the owner of said apartment which it let and leased to the plaintiff's father for a reward for use of the lessee and the members of his family, which included the plaintiff "as a place of abode for a period of one year, to-wit from the 1st day of October, 1937 to the 30th day of September, 1938; that on, to-wit, the 31st day of July, 1938 said Apartment No. 1-B was equipped with a device commonly known as a folding bed which said folding bed was one of the fixtures in said apartment No. 1-B and was furnished by the defendant to plaintiff's father for use by plaintiff's father, the members of his family and guests in and about the use and enjoyment of said apartment."

"And plaintiff avers that said folding bed was defective, in that said folding bed was insecurely attached to the portion of said apartment of which it was a part, and as a proximate result of said defect, aforesaid, said folding bed was not reasonably safe for use by plaintiff's father, the members of his family and guests, but on the contrary was imminently dangerous to users thereof when used as a bed; and plaintiff avers that such danger was known to the defendant or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been so known, but was not known to plaintiff and was not revealed to plaintiff by defendant." [Italics supplied.]

The gravamen of the count is stated thus:

"And plaintiff avers that on, to-wit, the 31st day of July, 1938, plaintiff was residing in said apartment as a member of the family and household of her father Charles F. Watson, and on, to-wit, said date while plaintiff was lying upon said folding bed said folding bed came loose from the portion of said apartment to which it was attached, and a portion of said folding bed fell upon and struck the plaintiff, and as a proximate result thereof plaintiff was injured and damaged as complained of and set out in Count 1 of her complaint."

"And plaintiff avers that the defendant negligently caused or negligently allowed plaintiff to use and lie upon said folding bed without having exercised reasonable diligence to notify plaintiff that said folding bed was imminently dangerous to human life or limb and to the public, including plaintiff as aforesaid, and plaintiff avers that all of her said injuries and damages were caused as a proximate result of the negligence of the defendant, as aforesaid." [Italics supplied.]

The gist of the charge is that the folding bed at the time of plaintiff's injury, when used as a bed, was imminently dangerous to human life or limb and to the public, including plaintiff, and that defendant negligently failed to notify plaintiff of such danger.

In drawing this count as appears from its context, and the argument made here to sustain it against the attack made by the defendant's demurrer, the pleader has attempted to bring it within the exception to the general rule applicable to concocters and manufacturers of commodities intended to be placed on sale to the general public through retailers and other channels, which are inherently or imminently dangerous, when used for the purposes for which they are concocted or manufactured and sold, as illustrated in some of our decisions, notably, Altorfer Bros. Co. v. Green, 236 Ala. 427, 183 So. 415, and Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc., v. Castleberry, 236 Ala. 349, 182 So. 474.

The pertinent exception, quoted with approval from the opinion of the court in Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 8 Cir., 120 F. 865, 61 L.R.A. 303, by Mr. Justice Thomas in the Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc., v. Castleberry, supra, is "one who sells or delivers an article which he knows to be imminently dangerous to life or limb to another without notice of its qualities is liable to any person who suffers an injury therefrom which might have been reasonably anticipated, whether there were any contractual relations between the parties or not." 236 Ala. 352, 182 So. 476.

In the Sterchi Bros. case, it was further said: "When the complaint portrays a negligence [conduct] imminently dangerous to the lives and limbs of those who should use the machine imminently dangerous to the lives and limbs of all who should undertake to operate it, a concealment of this dangerous condition, a knowledge of the defendant when it was shipped and supplied to the employer in its use for the purpose for which it was made, sold, delivered, and repaired the consequent damage to such purchaser is recoverable. This is within the...