Pontifex v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 7009.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 7009.,7009. |
| Citation | 226 F.2d 909 |
| Parties | E. J. PONTIFEX, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an infant, who sues by E. J. Pontifex, her father, as next friend, Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Incorporated, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Louis B. Fine, Norfolk, Va. (Howard I. Legum, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellants.
Thomas H. Willcox, Jr., and Thomas H. Willcox, Norfolk, Va. (Willcox, Cooke & Willcox, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, DOBIE, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant in a personal injury case. Plaintiff was injured when she was struck in the eye by a rope pulled to start the gasoline engine of a lawn mower. Plaintiff contends that there was negligence in the design of the lawn mower in that the rope was not permanently attached to a spring recoil mechanism, such as is found in the latest models of these machines, and that no warning was given of the danger of using it. We do not think, however, that it can be held to be negligence to sell an old model machine not equipped with a safety device of later models, and we find no evidence of negligence in the design or construction of the machine or of any need for warning or of any other negligence upon which a verdict for plaintiff could have been based.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Hobart Manufacturing Company
...F.2d 389 (6th Cir. 1962); (evidence of design changes which improved safety subsequent to accident inadmissible); Pontifex v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 226 F.2d 909 (4th Cir. 1955) (not negligent to sell old model machine not equipped with safety features found on later models); Wilson v. Savag......
-
Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 210
...which has reached the courts. See, for example, the cases collected in Annot., 80 A.L.R.2d 598 at 663 (1961); E. J. Pontifex v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 226 F.2d 909 (4th Cir. 1955) and Kientz v. Carlton, 245 N.C. 236, 96 S.E.2d 14 (1957) which held that the injured plaintiff had not met the b......
-
Noel v. United Aircraft Corporation
...respondent cites these three cases in support of its contention that it was not under a "continuing duty" here: Pontifex v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 226 F.2d 909 (4th Cir. 1955); Marker v. Universal Oil Products Co., 250 F.2d 603 (10th Cir. 1957); Mitchell v. Machinery Center, Inc., 297 F.2d 8......
-
Green v. Orion Shipping and Trading Co.
...Machine Works v. United States, 1 Cir., 175 F.2d 504; Hentschel v. Baby Bathinette Corp., 2 Cir., 215 F.2d 102; Pontifex v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 4 Cir., 226 F.2d 909; Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137, 106 A.2d 98; Bohlen, Studies in the Law of Torts, 636 et II. Facts — Injury and......