Miles v. Chrysler Corp.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1939
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 486.
• Parties: MILES v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

191 So. 245

238 Ala. 359

MILES v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION.

6 Div. 486.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 8, 1939

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1939.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Richard V. Evans Judge.

Action for damages by A. R. Miles against the Chrysler Corporation. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Taylor & Higgins, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Lange Simpson, Brantley & Robinson, of Birmingham, for appellee.

THOMAS Justice.

The suit was for personal injuries and damages sustained by plaintiff's wife, as a proximate result of alleged negligence of the defendant non-resident corporation under the rule of "manufacturer's liability."

Demurrer to the successive counts being sustained, plaintiff moved the court to enter a judgment of non-suit in said cause. Said motion was granted by the court, and on February 1, 1939, a judgment of non-suit was entered in the cause, the defendant and garnishee were discharged and a judgment for costs was entered against the plaintiff. To review the action of the trial court in sustaining demurrer to the several counts, this appeal is taken.

Under the facts as presented by Counts C & D, at common law, where there was no privity of contract, there was no liability. In the course of human events, however, this was found to be unjust and exceptions were made in the rule laid down by the common law under the doctrine of "manufacturers' liability" in what may be now called the pioneer cases. Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 8 Cir., 1903, 120 F. 865, 61 L.R.A. 303; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, 1053, L.R.A.1916F, 696, Ann.Cas.1916C, 440.

The several early cases reviewed by Mr. Justice Cardozo, in the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., supra, are as follows:

"We hold, then, that the principle of Thomas v. Winchester [6 N.Y. 397, 57 Am.Dec. 455] is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. That is as far as we are required to go for the decision of this case. There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable. It is possible to use almost anything in a way that will make it dangerous if defective. That is not enough to charge the manufacturer with a duty independent of his contract. Whether a given thing is dangerous may be sometimes a question for the court and sometimes a question for the jury. There must also be knowledge that in the usual course of events the danger will be shared by others than the buyer. Such knowledge may often be inferred from the nature of the transaction. But it is possible that even knowledge of the danger and the use will not always be enough. The proximity or remoteness of the relation is a factor to be considered. We are dealing now with the liability of the manufacturer of the finished product, who puts it on the market to be used without inspection by his customers. If he is negligent, where danger is to be foreseen, a liability will follow. We are not required, at this time, to say that it is legitimate to go back of the manufacturer of the finished product and hold the manufacturers of the component parts. To make their negligence a cause of imminent danger, an independent cause must often intervene; the manufacturer of the finished product must also fail in his duty of inspection. * * * The maker of this car supplied it for the use of purchasers from the dealer just as plainly as the contractor in Devlin v. Smith [89 N.Y. 470, 42 Am.Rep. 311] supplied the scaffold for use by the servants of the owner. The dealer was indeed the one person of whom it might be said with some approach to certainty that by him the car would not be used. Yet the defendant would have us say that he was the one person whom it was under a legal duty to protect. The law does not lead us to so inconsequent a conclusion. Precedents drawn from the days of travel by stagecoach do not fit the conditions of travel to-day. The principle that the danger must be imminent does not change, but the things subject to the principle do change. They are whatever the needs of life in a developing civilization require them to be.

"In reaching this conclusion, we do not ignore the decisions to the contrary in other jurisdictions. It was held in Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson [2 Cir.] 221 F. 801, L.R.A.1915E, 287 [Ann.Cas.1917E, 581], that an automobile is not within the rule of Thomas v. Winchester. There was, however, a vigorous dissent. Opposed to that decision is one of the Court of Appeals

...