(New York Court of Appeal) A manufacturer of a defective motor-car was held liable for damages at the instance of a third party. A motor-car might reasonably be regarded as a dangerous article: ‘There is no claim that the defendant know of the defect and wilfully concealed it . . The charge is one, not of fraud, but of negligence. The question to be determined is whether the defendant owed a duty of care and vigilance to anyone but the immediate purchaser . . The principle of Thomas v. Winchester is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If 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. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. That is as far as we are required to go for the decision of this case. There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable . . There must also be knowledge that in the usual course of events the danger will be shared by others than the buyer. Such knowledge may often be inferred from the nature of the transaction.. . . . The dealer was indeed the one person of whom it might be said with some approach to certainty that by him the car would not be used. Yet the defendant would have us say that he was the one person whom it [the defendant company] was under a legal duty to protect. The law does not lead us to so inconsequent a conclusion,’
Judges:
Cardozo J
Citations:
(1916) 217 NY 382
Citing:
Cited – Thomas v Winchester 1852
(New York) A chemist carelessly issued poison in answer to a request for a harmless drug, and he was held responsible to a third party injured by his neglect. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, International
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.197982
