Case Name: RICHARD O'DONNELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO., A/K/A THE ASPLUNDH CO., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1953-03-27
Citations: 25 N.J. Super. 335
Docket Number: 
Parties: RICHARD O’DONNELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO., A/K/A THE ASPLUNDH CO., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 335–341

Head Matter:
RICHARD O’DONNELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO., A/K/A THE ASPLUNDH CO., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued February 2, 1953
Decided March 27, 1953.
Bigelow, J. A. D., dissented.
Before Judges Eastwood, Bigelow and Jayne.
Mr. Sidney M. Schreiber argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. McKeown, Schreiber, Lancaster «£• Demos, attorneys; Mr. Roger F. Lancaster, on the brief).
Mr. James B. Emory argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Emory, Langan \& Lamb, attorneys; Mr. James J. Lang an, on the brief).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Jayne, J. A. D.
The mishap which has occasioned the present litigation occurred at Chelsea Place in East Orange on March 30, 1950. The plaintiff was engaged in the pursuit of his employment by the East Orange Shade Tree Commission and had ascended a swamp oak tree to perform some pruning of its limbs and branches. He was wearing a safety saddle and belt, to which was attached a clip, hook, or snap through the collar of which passed a manila rope half inch in diameter and about 120 feet in length. The rope was crotched in the tree at a point about 20 feet above him. He endeavored in accordance with the practice of such an occupation to swing to another part of the tree and while in sus pension the clip, sometimes called the snap or hook, suddenly fractured and he dropped to the ground.
He sought the recovery of compensatory damages for the injurious consequences of the mishap from Meeker Foundry Company which made the castings, the Covert Manufacturing Company which provided the requisite rivet and attached the clip and spring, and the Asplundh Tree Expert Company which supplied the clip to the Shade Tree Commission.
At the conclusion of the introduction by the plaintiff of the evidence relating to the issue of liability, judgments of involuntary dismissal were granted in favor of all of the defendants. Only the judgment of dismissal in favor of the Asplundh Company is the subject of the present appeal. Hereinafter the Asplundh Company will be designated as the defendant.
We necessarily approach the consideration of the propriety of the judgment under review with the consciousness that the court must accept as true all evidence which supports the view of the party against whom the motion is made and must give him the benefit of all inferences which may logically and legitimately be drawn therefrom in his favor. Gentile v. Pub. Service Coordinated Transport, 12 N. J. Super. 45 (App. Div. 1951).
In this case there was a prima facie background of certain basically essential facts. The defendant had previously sold to the East Orange Shade Tree Commission, among others, the clip which failed. It could have been logically and legitimately inferred that the defendant had reason to contemplate that the clip would be attached to some safety appliance which the Commission would supply for the use of its tree trimmers. The part of the clip that broke was a malleable iron casting which fractured at a brittle location where "the malleable-izing treatment had not been carried out perfectly and with complete success and that constituted a latent defect in the material of which the hook (clip) was made." The weakness would not be discernible "without breaking down and microscopic examination" or by subjecting the part to a "hardness test." Moreover "a malleable casting is not the best material for this type of use the forging would be much more effective."
The plaintiff's amended complaint is examined definitely to ascertain the character of his alleged cause of action against this defendant. It is therein alleged that "the aforesaid safety clip or snap broke causing plaintiff to fall to the ground, as a result of the negligence of the defendant Asplundh Tree Expert Co. in negligently assembling, testing and inspecting the aforesaid safety clip or snap and further negligently represented that this safety hook or snap was adequate to be used as a safety hook or snap for use by tree trimmers." The pretrial order states: "This suit is as pleadings indicate predicated solely on negl and no question of warranty, express or implied. Issues negl, contr. negl and assumption of risk. The above statement is not supposed to supplant the issues in the pleadings."
There is no evidence discoverable in the transcript warranting a reasonable inference that the component parts of the clip were in fact carelessly assembled, much less that this defendant was in any wise implicated in that function.
We then examine the transcript in search of the presence of some evidence that this defendant was negligent in "testing and inspecting" the clip, from which dereliction the mishap proximately resulted.
Initially we must realize that this defendant was not the manufacturer of the clip, nor is it evident that the defendant introduced it to the market as its own product under its own name or label. Cf. Heckel v. Ford Motor Co., 101 N. J. L.. 385 (E. & A. 1925), with Martin v. Studebaker Corp., 102 N. J. L. 612 (E. & A. 1926), and Slavin v. Francis K. Leggett & Co., 114 N. J. L. 421 (Sup. Ct. 1935), affirmed 117 N. J. L. 101 (E. & A. 1936).
We shall nevertheless assume that the defendant as a vendor of the clips was under the duty to exercise reasonable care' in the examination and inspection of them before sale, but certainly the law does not exact of a vendor the performance of impracticable tests and inspections or those unachievable without destroying the article and its market ability. Vide, Lipari v. National Grocery Co., 120 N. J. L. 97 (Sup. Ct. 1938); Roberts v. Geo. M. Brewster & Son, Inc., 13 N. J. Super. 462 (App. Div. 1951), certif. denied 7 N. J. 582 (1951); Nelson v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 11 N. J. 413, decided February 9, 1953.
The testimony at the trial oí the present action coming from the plaintiff's expert witness disclosed that the defect that caused the clip to fail was concealed in the interior of the casting and that it would be discoverable by an expert only by a disintegration of the easting followed by the use of a microscope.
Assuredly the duty to make such an inordinate test did not legally devolve upon the defendant as a vendor, and its failure to perforin such a test did not constitute in the legal conception of reasonable care proof of a culpable omission of a legal duty.
Yes, additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant "negligently represented that this safety hook or snap was adequate to be used as a safety hook ox snap fox use by tree climbers." There is no proof that any such representation was expressly or impliedly made by the defendant to the plaintiff. There is no proof of any contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. There is no allegation or proof that at the time of the sale of the clip to the plaintiff's employer the defendant knew such a representation to be false.
We observe in the record evidence indicating that subsequent to the sale of the clips to the Shade Commission the defendant was informed by the Covert Manufacturing Company that:
"Hone of our snaps are drop forged or suitable for safety equipment but many oí them are used for hanging accessories on linemen's belts and for ropes and other types of equipment not requiring critical loads."
Suffice to state that if upon the receipt of that information there was a duty on the part of the defendant to communicate that subsequently acquired cognizance to its previous vendees (a subject concerning which we express no opinion), it is obvious that the plaintiff alleged no cause of action arising out of any such omission of duty by the defendant.
The judgment under review is affirmed.