Maytag Co. v. Arbogast

• Decision Date: 16 February 1931
• Docket Number: 20488.
• Citation: 157 S.E. 350,42 Ga.App. 666
• Parties: MAYTAG CO. v. ARBOGAST.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

157 S.E. 350

42 Ga.App. 666

MAYTAG CO. v. ARBOGAST.

No. 20488.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

February 16, 1931

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1931.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Negligence of dealer in failing to discover defect in machine is not as matter of law intervening act breaking causal connection between manufacturer's negligence in putting out machine with knowledge of latent defect and injury to purchaser.

Evidence authorized inference that manufacturer's negligence in placing washing machine on market with knowledge of latent defect proximately caused injury to purchaser from dealer not knowing of defect.

Evidence showed that washing machine sold was defective, in that spring releasing wringer was omitted, resulting in injury to operator's hand which was resting on wringer when machine was set in motion. Evidence further authorized inference that defect causing injury existed when machine left factory, that machine was inspected at the factory by manufacturer before it was put on market, and that manufacturer knew of defect but that dealer to whom manufacturer sold machine and who in turn sold it to the plaintiff operating machine had no knowledge of defective condition.

Whether manufacturer's negligence in selling machine with knowledge of latent defect or dealer's negligence in failing to discover defect proximately caused injury to purchaser was jury question.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Action by H. E. Arbogast against the Maytag Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Spalding McDougald & Sibley and Estes Doremus, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Hewlett & Dennis and T. F. Bowden, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

STEPHENS J.

1. Where the manufacturer of an article, such as a piece of machinery, which is built and assembled at the factory and is sold and placed on the market to be used in substantially the condition it is in when it leaves the factory, knows of and conceals a latent defect in its construction which would render the machine dangerous to persons not in privity of contract with the manufacturer, but who use the machine for the purpose intended, the mere negligence of the dealer, who purchased the machine from the manufacturer and sold it to a person injured by it, in failing to discover its defective condition, is not, as a matter of law, such an intervening act as would break whatever causal connection there might be between the manufacturer's negligence in putting out the machine with knowledge of its defective condition and an injury to a person, not in privity of contract with the manufacturer, received while operating the machine. Schubert v. Clark, 49 Minn. 331, 51 N.W. 1103, 15 L.R.A. 818, 32 Am.St.Rep. 559; Lewis v. Terry, 111 Cal. 39, 43 P. 398, 31 L.R.A. 220, 52 Am.St.Rep. 146; Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Manuf. Co., 183 N.Y. 78 75 N.E. 1098, 2 L.R.A. (N. S.) 303, 111 Am.St.Rep. 691, 5 Ann.Cas. 124; 19 L.R.A. (N. S.) 923 note. The rule might perhaps be otherwise if the dealer had knowledge of the defective condition of the machine. Olds Motor Works v Shaffer, 145 Ky. 616, 140 S.W. 1047, 37 L.R.A. (N. S.) 560, Ann.Cas. 1913B, 689. See, also, in this connection, Huset v. Case Threshing Mach. Co. (C.C.A.) 120 F. 865, 61 L.R.A. 303. In the present case, in which a person not in...