User:JD Caselaw/Losee v. Clute

Losee v. Clute, 51 N. Y. 494 (1873).
 * “It may be proper to refer to the case of Thomas v. Winchester (2 Selden, 397), cited by the appellant's counsel, and I deem it sufficient to say that the opinion of HUNT, J., in Loop v. Litchfield (42 N. Y., 351) clearly shows that the principle decided in that case has no application to this.”

Held
Boilers are not inherently dangerous
 * like wheels, see Loop v. Litchfield)
 * unlike belladonna (Thomas v. Winchester)

FACTS

 * Action brought to recover damages caused to the property of the plaintiff by the explosion of a steam boiler.
 * The boiler was owned and was being used by the Saratoga Paper Company at their mill.
 * It was made of poor materials.
 * The boiler was tested by the company and showed to be satisfactory. It was used for three months before the accident occurred.
 * The boiler exploded and was thrown on to the plaintiff’s premises and through several of his buildings.
 * Two people were killed and the buildings were damaged.
 * (note but not part of facts) The defendants, Clute, were also the defendants in an action brought up by the Saratoga Paper Company, alleging that Clute were the manufacturers of the boiler and made the boiler out of poor materials in a negligent and defective manner, which led to the explosion. The complaint was dismissed (decided in favor of the defendant)

PROCEDURE
Appeal from the judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial district. The appeal affirmed the judgment entered upon an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint on the trial. The case is now in the Commission of Appeals of New York (treated equally with Court of Appeals)

ISSUE
Are manufacturers liable for damage to the property of a party not enjoying privity of contract by their products after they are finished with their work and the product is purchased and being used, if the product is not inherently dangerous but if faulty could cause severe injury to nearby people?

HOLDING
Manufacturers are not liable for damage to the property of a party not enjoying privity of contract by their products after they are finished with their work and the product is purchased and being used, even if the product is not inherently dangerous but if faulty could cause severe injury to nearby people. This is because once the buyer has accepted the goods, the manufacturers no longer bear responsibility.

ANALYSIS

 * Plaintiffs allege that defendants knew that the boiler was going to be used near homes and stores, so in the case of explosion, there would be much loss of life and property in the adjacent area
 * Defendants allege that they did what was expected of them in their contract with the company and that once the company had accepted the boiler, the defendants no longer had any control or involvement in the boiler’s management. They cite Albany v. Cunliff (case in which architect or builder is not deemed responsible for any accidents that might occur after the execution of the work).
 * This is not an inherently dangerous weapon (Thomas v Winchester, Loop v Litchfield)
 * Court says that the complaint against the defendant was properly dismissed. (note, they had already started regulating boilers on steamships)