Pesavento v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 73.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 73.,73. |
| Citation | 215 N.W. 330,240 Mich. 434 |
| Parties | PESAVENTO v. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Gogebic County; George O. Driscoll, Judge.
Action by Domenic Pesavento against E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
E. W. Massie, of Ironwood, for appellant.
C. M. Humphrey, of Ironwood, A. W. MacLeod, of Eau Claire, Wis., and J. P. Laffey, of Willington, Del., for appellee.
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while he was using fuse to explode a charge of dynamite in the mines of the Newport Mining Company where he was employed.
The plaintiff and two other workmen who were engaged with him at the time of the accident were experienced miners. They wre crosscutting underground. They had drilled eight holes from 5 1/2 to 6 feet deep, into which they had placed dynamite cartridges, and to each of which was attached the cap and 6 feet of fuse. The fuse was furnished by the defendant company with the representation that it was waterproof and would burn at the rate of 2 feet to the minute with a 10 per cent. variation; that is, 6 feet of fuse would require 3 minutes to burn. After the plaintiff had placed the dynamite in each of the 8 holes, he proceeded to ignite the fuse by using a carbide lamp which he carried on his cap. While he was lighting the fuse in the sixth hole there was a premature explosion from the second, as a result of which he suffered serious injuries. It is his claim that the premature explosion was caused by a defective fuse; that the fuse was soft, had black spots on it, and was ‘swelled up a bit,’ indicating that it had been improperly manufactured or had been negligently handled by the defendant; and that because of these defects in the fuse it did not burn at the rate of 2 feet to the minute as the defendant represented, but burned from end to end almost instantaneously.
The defendant is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling dynamite, powder, percussion caps, and fuse at the city of Ironwood, Mich. It sold the fuse in question to the Newport Mining Company for use in its mining operations. It does not manufacture the fuse which it sells, but purchases it from the Ensign-Bickford Company, a reputable manufacturer of fuse in Simsbury, Conn. The fuse is received from the manufacturer in car lots and is delivered by the defendant to the mining companies in the original packages. It is shipped in boxes made of white pine lumber, matched, grooved, and tongued. Each box contains 60 rolls a hundred feet in length. Each roll is wrapped in glazed paper. The defendant did not inspect the fuse before delivering it to the mining company, and made no inspection at the place where it was manufactured. The defendant denies that the fuse was defective, denies that it was its duty to inspect, denies that it was negligent, and makes the defense that, having purchased the fuse from a reputable manufacturer and delivered it in the original package without knowledge or notice of any defect therein, it is not liable in this action.
At the close of the plaintiff's case and again when all the proofs were in, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. The court reserved his decision under the statute, and after a verdict of $3,000 for the plaintiff entered judgment of non obstante veredicto for the defendant. The plaintiff has brought error.
The facts are not in dispute. It must be conceded that the fuse was defective and that it was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. The question is one of law; vix., whether the defendant, the vendor of the fuse, is liable for the injuries of one with whom it had no contractual relations.
‘The tendency throughout the United States is, with but few exceptions, to regard the act of sale as terminating all liability on the part of the maker or vendor of a defectively constructed article or structure, unless the article is either a drug, chemical, or explosive and so ‘imminently dangerous to human life,’ or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boumelhem v. Bic Corp.
...disposition for the defendant regarding their claim of intentional tort. We disagree. Plaintiffs cite Pesavento v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 240 Mich. 434, 437-438, 215 N.W. 330 (1927), in which our Supreme Court stated the then general rule and exception that a manufacturer is not liab......
-
Bathory v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Company
...of the product which he sells. Clement v. Rommeck, 149 Mich. 595, 113 N.W. 286, 13 L.R.A.,N.S., 382; Pesavento v. E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 240 Mich. 434, 215 N.W. 330; Camden Fire Insurance Co. v. Peterman, 278 Mich. 615, 270 N.W. 807; Elizabeth Arden v. Brown, 107 F. 2d 938 (CA 3, 193......
-
Grinnell v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.
...a reputable manufacturer for resale as a vendor without any knowledge of its defective condition and cite Pesavento v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 240 Mich. 434, 215 N.W. 330, as authority therefor. In the case at bar the record shows that under certain conditions the use of Pyrofax may......
-
MacRes v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
...negligence. Plaintiff's case, in its last analysis, is bottomed on negligence.’ Mr. Justice McDonald, in Pesavento v. E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 240 Mich. 434, 215 N.W. 330, 331, discussed the general rule found in Huset v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 8 Cir., 120 F. 865, 61 L.R.A. 303, a......