217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050
The defendant Buick Motor Company manufactured automobiles and purchased ready-made wheels from the Imperial Wheel Company of Flint, Michigan.1 The Imperial company had furnished the defendant with eighty thousand wheels, none of which had proved defective prior to this incident.2 The defendant sold one such automobile to a firm of automobile dealers in Schenectady, who in turn sold the car to the plaintiff.3
While the plaintiff was driving the automobile at a speed of only eight miles an hour, a wheel collapsed because it was made of defective wood whose spokes crumbled into fragments.4 The plaintiff was thrown out and injured.5 The wheel had been bought from the outside manufacturer rather than produced by the defendant.6
Evidence showed that the defects could have been discovered by reasonable inspection, which the defendant omitted.78 There was no claim that the defendant knew of the defect and willfully concealed it.9 The car was designed to go fifty miles an hour.10 It had seats for three persons.11
The plaintiff commenced an action for negligence against the defendant.12 The case was tried to a jury.13 The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with costs.14
Whether the defendant manufacturer owed a duty of care and vigilance to anyone but the immediate purchaser?15
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.16
Yes. The established facts establish that the defendant manufactured automobiles and sold one to a retail dealer who resold it to the plaintiff.17 The car was designed to go fifty miles an hour. It had seats for three persons. While the plaintiff was driving at eight miles an hour, a wheel made of defective wood collapsed, injuring him.18
The defects could have been discovered by reasonable inspection, which the defendant omitted. The nature of an automobile gives warning of probable danger if its construction is defective.19 Unless its wheels were sound and strong, injury was almost certain.20 The defendant knew the danger.21 It knew also that the car would be used by persons other than the buyer.22 This was apparent from its size; there were seats for three persons. It was apparent also from the fact that the buyer was a dealer in cars, who bought to resell.23 There is here no break in the chain of cause and effect.24 In such circumstances, the presence of a known danger, attendant upon a known use, makes vigilance a duty.25
The defendant manufacturer owed a duty of care and vigilance to the plaintiff.26