McLaughlin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 6114
| Decision Date | 29 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 6114,6114 |
| Parties | John F. McLAUGHLIN v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY. John F. McLAUGHLIN v. WHITE METAL ROLLING & STAMPING CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Stebbins & Bradley, Hanover (David H. Bradley, Hanover, orally), for plaintiff.
Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch, Manchester (Shane Devine, Manchester, orally), for defendants.
Plaintiff John F. McLaughlin sustained injuries as a result of the collapse of a ladder which was manufactured by the defendant White Metal and sold to the plaintiff by the defendant Sears. The Trial Court (Perkins, J.) granted the defendants' motion for a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's evidence and reserved and transferred the plaintiff's exception.
The plaintiff testified that he purchased the ladder in the case at the Sears, Roebuck store in Claremont, New Hampshire in August of 1964. The ladder was aluminum and could be used as a seven foot stepladder or opened up for use as an extension ladder. In 1964 the plaintiff was the general manufacturing manager of the Cone Automatic Company in Windsor, Vermont and had just purchased a new home in Hanover, New Hampshire.
The ladder was loaded into the trunk of plaintiff's car with the help of Sears' employees and taken to Hanover where it was placed on its side in the living room of the new house. It remained there for several months while plaintiff carried out certain landscaping and other finishing work on his house. During this period plaintiff carried the ladder outside and set it up in the extended position but not liking its appearance in this position returned it to the living room without using it. Plaintiff had testified that he had used ladders extensively since he had worked as a painter while attending college but that he was not particularly familiar with metal ladders.
On November 5, 1964 plaintiff used the ladder as a stepladder to do some painting in areas that he could reach by standing on the first step of the ladder. When he completed his painting for the day the entire house was painted except for the stairwell area leading up to the third level of the house and down to the first level. In order to determine how much of an extension would be required on a paint roller to reach the ceiling in the area with the help of the stepladder, he set the ladder up. It was set up facing the living room about six inches from the wall on the left with the stairs going down on the right and up in the rear.
Plaintiff testified he went three or four steps up the ladder when it suddenly gave way to the right and he threw himself to the left, fell and sustained the 'injuries complained of.' After the accident the two legs of the ladder under the steps were bent sharply to the left.
An expert for the plaintiff testified that the ladder would support a weight of 800 pounds under ideal conditions but that when a person mounted the ladder his weight initially fell primarily on the two legs under the bottom step. If the ladder were set up with one of these legs off the floor by as little as a sixteenth of an inch or if the leg were bent by three-quarters of an inch rocking onto this leg could cause it to collapse as it did in the accident. He testified that the right leg probably collapsed inward followed by the left leg collapsing outward. He gave as his opinion that a leg could be bent three-quarters of an inch out of line by a horizontal push of fifty pounds or by its being struck against another object. He agreed that the accident would not have happened unless the leg had been bent before its last use or set up with one leg slightly off the floor.
Our adoption of the rule of strict liability in actions against manufacturers and sellers of products (Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., 110 N.H. 36, 260 A.2d 111 (1969)) included the fundamental requirement that the plaintiff must establish that the accident was caused by a defect present in the product at time of purchase. Id. at 39, 260 A.2d at 113; Elliott v. Lachance, 109 N.H. 481, 484-485, 256 A.2d 153, 155-156 (1969); Restatement (Second) of Torts, Comment 9 (1965). The plaintiff in this case testified he examined the ladder and set it up carefully before climbing it. However, the testimony of the plaintiff's expert established that the legs would not have collapsed in the absence of distortion of a leg or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raymond v. Raymond Corp.
...dangerous condition existed when the product was purchased. Id. at 809, 395 A.2d at 847 (citing McLaughlin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 111 N.H. 265, 267, 281 A.2d 587, 588 (1971)); Fortier, 840 F.2d at 100. We consider appellant's evidentiary claims in light of this standard. III. MOTION FOR J......
-
Wood v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 6405
...unsuitableness or defect in the product. Elliott v. Lachance, 109 N.H. 481, 484-485, 256 A.2d 153, 156 (1969); McLaughlin v. Sears, Roebuck, 111 N.H. 265, 281 A.2d 587 (1971). Although the generating and distribution of electricity has been held a dangerous activity, electric companies have......
-
Moulton v. Groveton Papers Co.
...256 A.2d 153, 155 (1969); Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., 110 N.H. 36, 260 A.2d 111 (1969); see McLaughlin v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 111 N.H. --, 281 A.2d 587 (1971). We are of the opinion that the history and the considerations which have led this court to adopt strict liabilit......
-
Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor Co.
...of use is one for the jury, but courts will decide it as a matter of law when reasonable minds could not disagree. McLaughlin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra; Johnson v. Standard Brands Paint Co., 274 Cal.App.2d 331, 79 Cal.Rptr. 194, 198--199 (Cal.App.1969); Lifritz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,......