Omaha daily bee., 1912-02-21
ILlABlllry Of AUTO MAKERS
Features Of Ruling HANDED Dewm
BY Kentucky cesrt of
Appeals.


A construction Of the law important 10
automobile owners and manufacturers
was rendered December 1. by the court
OF appeals Of Kentucky affirming the
Judgment OF the circuit court. In the
case OF Lucy shaffer against the olds
Motor Works, Il was shown that the oads
Motor Works sold 10 Gardner q Colsson
Of Louisville a machine with o rumble
or rear seat, fastened to teol boz. The
purchaser rented the machine to Mrs
shaffer, and while riding In the rumble
seat the screws became loose ana the
whole box fell off injuring her TO the
extent that she recovered damages
amounting to noss. The manufacturers
held that II the machine was unsafe
this fact was known to the purchasers
at the time OF sale and before Miss Shat
fer rented II. and that this knowledge
exempted the company from liability 10
Miss shaffer. a third party. unknown TO
them. and that an automobile By its very
nature Ia dangerous, and that II was In
cumbcnt upon Miss Shaffer TO prove that
the machine was defective and that such
a condition was concealed from the pur-
chaser when II was sold.
The appellate court Of Kentucky held
that a manufacturer is liable 10 q third
party when the article manufactured d
dangerous 10 health. limb or life: and
when the maker sells such articles for
general use which he knows 10 be emil.
nently unsafe and coneeals these defects
from the purchaser. .z-.
Apparently this decision Is an appllca-
tlon In this respect Of an old principle
TO a new article. yet II does not seem as
though there Is error in holding a manu-
factursr liable 10 a third party with
whom there had been absolutely no
privity. quite irrespective Of whether the
evidence showed that there was defect
There should have been two suits. one
between Miss Shaffer and the firm from
which she rented the machine and which
was directly responsible for its actual
condition at the>time of her injury. and
another suit. quite distinct. between the
purchasers and the manufacturers. II Il
could be proved that this specific ma
chine was defective and below their stand
ard make and that such a condition was
concesled from the purchaser. Fer other
wise this ruling Of the court Of appeals
OF Kentucky makes q manufacturer liable
without limit for the immediate condition
Of his machine sold broadcast Throughout
the country. and which may then be re-
sold and rented. as in this case, to q
third or fourth party.
Ii was held once in Ohio that not even
and not the manufacturer. was liable to q
passenger for a defect IN the fastenings
OF an upper berth which struck the pas
senfer. the court holding that the carrier.
and not the Manufacturer was liable to a
passenger. And II would seem that pre-
eisely the same principle ought 10 have
held In the case noted from Kentucky
Moreover. from the point Of view OF pub
lie safety. the holding OF third and ab-
sent party liable is a mistaken ruling,
for IL will tend TO make dealers and
garage proprietors careless Of the hidden
conditions OF their machines. ont only o,
the time Of purchase. but also without
! limit. They have merely. 20 insist that
they were ignorant Of defects Of manu-.
J facture. whereas the court should hxv,
held that II was their special business
: 10 be cogniEant Of the SEXUAL condition
Of their machines. hidden or otherwise
? At any and all times. for the p2rtieulai
: safety Of their Own e1ssomers