Title: Hollenbeck v. Ramset Fasteners, Inc.

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

148 S.E.2d 287 (1966) 267 N.C. 401 Orville S. HOLLENBECK v. RAMSET FASTENERS, INC., a Corporation, (Ramset DivisionOlin Mathieson Chemical Corporation), and Acousti Engineering of Carolinas, Inc., also known as Acoustics, Inc. No. 288. Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 25, 1966. *288 Carswell & Justice, by James F. Justice, Peter L. Reynolds, Charlotte, for plaintiff appellant. Boyle, Alexander & Carmichael, by R. C. Carmichael, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellee. PLESS, Justice. Since the manufacturer of the powder actuated tool is not a party, the doctrine of implied warrant is not available to the plaintiff. He seeks to recover of the seller upon the alleged breach of an express warranty as summarized in the statement of facts. In Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Don Allen Chevrolet Co., 253 N.C. 243, 116 S.E.2d 780, Bobbitt, J., speaking for this Court said: That case cites Underwood v. Coburn Motor Car Co., 166 N.C. 458, 82 S.E. 855 which says: Stating it another way: a seller is bound by an express warranty when, and only when, it is made to induce a sale and does induce such sale. The plaintiff testified that the alleged warranty was made in 1957 but stated on cross examination that, "this particular tool I had used first in 1955 about three and one-half years before the accident." Nowhere does he say that the alleged warranty induced the sale or that he, or his employer, relied upon it. A salesman is permitted to "puff his wares" and, in saying that a powder actuated tool is safe has merely expressed an opinion. There is no such thing as a safe shotgun or circular saw. Neither can a tool that, with the use of a powder charge, forces a steel bolt into concrete be termed "safe." They are necessarily and inherently dangerous and can be safe only when used with great care and caution. Even if the plaintiff's evidence justified the finding of an express warranty, he has shown no breach of that warranty except the fact of his injury. His own evidence establishes that he had been using a similar tool for some seven years and had fired it more than four thousand times. The particular tool used on the date of his injury had been used by him "for the last year or so", and on the day of the accident he had successfully used it three times prior to being injured with the fourth pin. The plaintiff also complains that Henderson did not warn him of the possibility of ricochet. While it is true that Henderson testified as to two cases of ricochet with a similar tool, plaintiff's evidence does not show that the salesman had this knowledge at the time of the sale. The evidence does affirm, and specifically so, that each of the several thousand times the plaintiff picked up the tool, he was confronted with the printed statement on the shield which warned of a possible ricochet. He could hardly expect more impressive notice than this and exceptions relating thereto are overruled. Neither can the plaintiff recover upon the theory of res ipsa loquitur. In 38 Am.Jur. § 299, p. 995, it is said: In view of the use by the plaintiff of this tool or a similar one for some seven years and four thousand "shots", it would be unreasonable to assume that the defendant had *290 knowledge superior to the plaintiff's in regard to the use or condition of the tool. We have given full consideration to all the arguments and contentions advanced by the plaintiff, but can find no basis upon which to hold the defendant liable. Plaintiff's assignments of error are, therefore, overruled, and the judgment below granting the defendant's motion for nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's evidence is Affirmed. PARKER, C. J., concurs in result. MOORE, J., not sitting.