Paradis v. A.L. Nichols Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1938 |
| Citation | 12 N.E.2d 863,299 Mass. 364 |
| Parties | ARTHUR PARADIS v. THE A. L. NICHOLS COMPANY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
October 26, 1937.
Present: FIELD DONAHUE, LUMMUS, QUA, & DOLAN, JJ.
Sale, Warranty. Proximate Cause. Husband and Wife. Damages, For breach of contract.
A breach by a merchant of an implied warranty of the fitness of a bed purchased by a husband entitled the husband, under G. L (Ter. Ed.) c.
106, Sections 58 (6), 59, to recover the medical expenses incurred by him by reason of personal injuries sustained by his wife by reason of a defect in the bed; whether the wife had a cause of action against the merchant was immaterial.
CONTRACT OR TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated March 21, 1934. A verdict for the defendant was ordered by Brogna, J. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
The case was submitted on briefs.
H. E. Clarkin & J.
T. Farrell, for the plaintiff.
F. M. Silvia & F.
M. Silvia, Jr., for the defendant.
The plaintiff seeks to recover for medical expenses incurred by him in consequence of a personal injury to his wife caused by the breaking of a bed which the plaintiff had purchased from the defendant. The parties have stipulated that if the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury on any of his counts, judgment shall be entered in his favor in the sum of $600, but that if the judge rightly directed a verdict for the defendant, judgment shall be entered on the verdict. As we are of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury on his count for breach of implied warranty, we shall confine our discussion to that count.
G. L. (Ter.
Ed.) c. 106, Section 17 (1), provides for an implied warranty of fitness where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller's skill and judgment. There was evidence that the plaintiff himself purchased the bedroom set of which the bed was a part at the defendant's store; that the plaintiff preferred a different set, but that the defendant's salesman advised him to take the one which he bought and told him that it was better and cheaper, and that the bed was good, "right brand new from the factory"; that the plaintiff relied upon the salesman's statements; and that the defect which caused the injury consisted of a head post which had been cracked or partly broken and glued back in place, so that the defect was not apparent upon examination. Section 17 (3). About six months later, while the plaintiff and his wife were asleep, a crescent-shaped piece broke away from the post where it had been glued, allowing the side rail to fall and throwing out the plaintiff's wife. The injury to the wife resulted in the incurring of medical expenses, for which the husband was presumably liable. Kenyon v. Vogel, 250 Mass. 341 , 344.
Upon this evidence it was as much within the province of a jury to find the existence and breach of an implied warranty of fitness and that injury to the plaintiff's wife causing expense to the plaintiff was a direct and natural result of the breach in the ordinary course of events (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 106 Sections 58 [6], 59) as it was within the province of the jury to make comparable or equivalent findings in the case of a sale to a husband of meat unfit to eat which made his wife ill. Gearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial