Reynolds v. American Foundry & Mach. Co., 7697

• Decision Date: 08 January 1952
• Docket Number: No. 7697,7697
• Citation: 121 Utah 130,239 P.2d 209
• Parties: REYNOLDS, v. AMERICAN FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 209

239 P.2d 209

121 Utah 130

REYNOLDS, v.AMERICAN FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO.

No. 7697.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 8, 1952.

McKay, Burton, McMillan & Richards, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Wilkinson & Smoot, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment entered on a $5000 verdict for injuries to plaintiff's hand, allegedly caused when a defective chain belonging to defendant broke.The judgment is affirmed, with costs on appeal to plaintiff.

Defendant claims it had no duty to inspect the chain since it was purchased from a reliable manufacturer, and assails the giving of certain instructions and failure to give others.We consider these contentions untenable for reasons stated hereinafter.

In 1937, in changing its furnace, defendant bought a large transformer containing a 6-ton core.One Silver contracted the installation and in connection therewith, suggested that a chain and block be purchased to hoist the core should that become necessary for repairs.He recommended a particular national manufacturer, but defendant secured it from another national concern.When the chain was delivered, Silver looked it over, notified that it had a 6-ton manufacturer's rating but made no further inspection or test, nor did he indicate that it was unsatisfactory in any way.It was stored and idle until 1948, when a breakdown in the transformer required its use.Silver was called in on a contract basis to make the emergency repairs, using plaintiff and several other of his employees together with several of defendant's.Mr. Bockman, one of defendant's experts, was consulted, he and Silver jointly directing the job, including raising and lowering of the core.Neither inspected the chain nor submitted it to a weight proof test before use, nor did anyone else.If such test had been given, according to the record, it would have contemplated the lifting of double the weight rated by the manufacturer.The chain was attached to the core, which was raised and actually held suspended in midair for 48 hours, when a defective link separated, causing plaintiff's injuries.The core weighed 160 pounds less than the rated 6 tons, making obvious the fact that the chain would have broken had it been subjected to the weight proof test.

The record makes it clear that defendant supplied Silver with the chain purchased for the hoisting of the core, for use by plaintiff and others in accomplishing a business purpose of the defendant,--that of effecting emergency repairs to its plant.

In such...