Pedroli v. Russell
| Decision Date | 30 January 1958 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Andrew PEDROLI, Marie Pedroli, Guiseppe Aldera, Jennie Aldera, Grace Roberts and Margaret Schwager, individually and doing business as Cleanrite Cleaners, a co-partnership, National Union Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, National Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. C. L. RUSSELL, an individual doing business as Russell Laundry Machinery Company, Mund Boilers, Inc., a corporation et al., Defendants, Mund Boilers, Inc., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 17671. |
Low & Burnside, Howard S. Burnside, Menlo Park, for appellants.
Nelson, Boyd & Menary, D. K. MacDonald, Jr., San Rafael, for respondent, Mund Boilers.
Two of the plaintiffs, Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Schwager, operated a shop for the alteration and pressing of clothing. They ordered a steam boiler from one Russell, a jobber or distributor of laundry and dry cleaning equipment. Russell sold them a boiler manufactured by defendant Mund Boilers, Inc., and suggested their employment of one Thomas to install it, Russell agreeing to pay the labor cost. Thomas placed one three-inch course or layer of fire brick on the wooden floor of the shop, and placed the boiler upon it, with no heat resistant substance or air space between the boiler and the floor. The five horsepower boiler was enclosed in a metal cabinet 37 1/2 inches high, 48 1/2 inches long, and 20 1/2 inches wide. There was no bottom wall, and the gas burner was a few inches above the bottom of the side walls. An advertising pamphlet issued by defendant said of this boiler that 'no special space, pit, or foundation is required for its installation.' In the early morning of April 17, two to three weeks after the boiler was installed, the shop was swept by a fire which started in the floor immediately beneath the boiler.
Plaintiffs Roberts and Schwager brought this action for damage to their equipment caused by the fire and for the amounts they had been required to pay to customers for clothing destroyed. Joined with them as plaintiffs were Mr. and Mrs. Pedroli and Mr. and Mrs. Aldera, owners of the building in which the shop was located; a tenant of the same building who had lost personal property in the fire; and the insurers of an adjoining building also damaged. Russell and Thomas were joined as defendants but the action was dismissed as to them, and was tried only against defendant Mund Boilers, Inc. At the close of the non-jury trial, judgment was entered for defendant. All plaintiffs appeal.
The briefs are largely devoted to discussion of the authorities dealing with liability of a manufacturer to one who did not purchase from or otherwise contract with him. Our courts have long recognized liability, without privity, for injuries caused by defective chattels. The earlier applications of the rule were based upon knowledge of the defect by the manufacturer or seller, and his 'concealment' of the defect (Lewis v. Terry, 111 Cal. 39, 43 P. 398, 31 L.R.A. 220), or upon preparation or sale of articles imminently or inherently dangerous to human safety (Prosser on Torts, 2d ed., 499). In 1916, the New York Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Justice Cardozo, held that the principle is not limited to 'things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction.' Rather '[i]f 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' and the manufacturer, if he knows that it will be used by persons other than the purchaser, without new tests, is 'under a duty to make it carefully' (MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, 1053, L.R.A.1916F, 696; for full discussion of development of the principle, see Prosser on Torts, 2d ed., 497-513). The rule of the MacPherson case has been adopted in California (Kalash v. Los Angeles Ladder Co., 1 Cal.2d 229, 34 P.2d 481), and has been applied where the only foreseeable risk is of danger to tangible property (Kolberg v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 93 Cal.App. 609, 269 P. 975; see also discussion in Biakanja v. Irving, Cal., 320 P.2d 16).
These rules, however, do not directly govern the case at bar. Appellants specifically disclaim the contention that the damage here resulted from faulty fabrication or from mere operation of the boiler for the purpose for which it was intended. Rather, appellants contend that the boiler manufactured by respondent was dangerous if placed in use upon a combustible floor unless adequately insulated against heat. They assert that, at least in the light of the statements of the advertising material, it was respondent's duty to warn of the need of such insulation, and that the admitted lack of such warning renders it liable here.
It is clear that the manufacturer of a dangerous device has a duty to warn of its dangerous propensities, and is liable to one whose injury results from such failure to warn, even though the injured party did not purchase directly from him (Larramendy v. Myres, 126 Cal.App.2d 636, 272 P.2d 824). That case differs from ours in that specific directions provided by the manufacturer were followed, and resulted in injury. Thus more than mere failure to warn was involved. For purposes of this decision, however, we assume that the rule of Larramendy, if applicable upon the facts, governs the case at bar.
In determining applicability of that decision, the first question is whether the boiler here involved is a dangerous device within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodruff v. Clark County Farm Bureau Co-op. Ass'n
...399; Ruberoid Co., Inc. v. Chapman v. Cir. 1961) 293 F.2d 712; Chapman v. Brown, (D.C.Hawaii 1961) 198 F.Supp. 78; Pedroli v. Russell, (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 281, 320 P.2d 873; Kaufman v. Katz, (1959) 356 Mich. 354, 97 N.W.2d 56; Ladewig v. Glencoe Mills, Inc. (1962) 261 Minn. 501, 113 N.W.2......
-
Robinson v. Williamsen Idaho Equipment Co.
...Products Liability-Inadequacy of Information, 48 Tex.L.Rev. 398 (1970) for critical discussion of this rule.19 Pedroli v. Russell, 157 Cal.App.2d 281, 320 P.2d 873 (1958); Marker v. Universal Oil Products Co., 250 F.2d 603 (10th Cir. 1957) (applying Oklahoma law); La Plante v. E. I Du Pont ......
-
Vroman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...Oil Sales Co., 155 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1946); Hobart v. Sohio Petroleum Company, 255 F.Supp. 972 (N.D.Miss.1966); Pedroli v. Russell, 157 Cal.App.2d 281, 320 P.2d 873, 876 (1958). Plaintiff offers no clue as to the manner in which a warning to his grandfather of a danger already known to him......
-
Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company
...which is predicated on a construction of Section 12 of the Uniform Sales Act,1 as adopted by many of the States. Pedroli v. Russell, 157 Cal.App.2d 281, 320 P.2d 873 (Cal.1958); Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 167 Ohio St. 244, 147 N.E. 2d 612 (1958); Frank v. Salomon, 376 Ill. 439, 34 N......