User:JD Caselaw/Loop v. Litchfield

Loop v. Litchfield 42 N. Y. 351 (1870)

Facts
There was a defect in the rim of a balance wheel for a saw. This was called to the purchaser’s attention (Collister) and patched. It flew apart under use after 4 years, killing Loop who was using the saw with permission.

ISSUE

 * P cites Thomas v. Winchester, Longmeid v. Holliday, Dixon v. Bell for negligence liability.
 * D cites Thomas v. Winchester on visibility of defect suggesting contributory negligence.

HELD
HELD: Thomas v. Winchester is set aside, based on “instruments of danger.”

Up front statement: “The vendor of an article of his own manufacture is not liable to one who uses the same, with the consent of the purchaser, for injuries resulting from a defect therein, unless such article is, in its nature, dangerous”

Hunt, J states, ruling for defendant:
 * “To maintain this liability, the appellants, rely upon the case of Thomas v. Winchester... It was conceded by the counsel in that case and by the court, that there was no privity of contract between Winchester and Thomas, and that there could be no recovery upon that ground ...[now citing TvW] ‘the case in hand stands on a different ground. The defendant was a dealer in poisonous drugs. Gilbert was his agent in preparing them for market. The death or great bodily harm of some person, was the natural, and almost inevitable consequence of the sale of belladonna by means of the false label.’ ...The appellants recognize the principle of this decision, and seek to bring their case within it, by asserting that the fly-wheel in question was a dangerous instrument. Poison is a dangerous subject. Gunpowder is the same. A torpedo is a dangerous instrument, as is a spring gun, a loaded rifle or the like. They are instruments and articles in their nature to do injury to mankind, and generally intended to accomplish that purpose. They are essentially, and in their elements, instruments of danger. Not so, however, an iron wheel”