Case Name: WHITE SEWING MACHINE CO. v. FEISEL
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1927-11-28
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 137
Docket Number: No. 1941
Parties: WHITE SEWING MACHINE CO. v. FEISEL.
Judges: (Richards, J., concurs. Lloyd, J., concurs in judgment.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
WHITE SEWING MACHINE CO. v. FEISEL.
Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.
No. 1941.
Decided Nov. 28, 1927.
Fraser, Hiett, Wall & Efiler, Toledo, for White Sewing Machine Co.
W. W. Campbell and Henry H. Crist, Toledo, for Feisel.

Opinion:
OPINION OP COURT.
The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.
WILLIAMS, J.
It is a general rule of law that a manufacturer or seller is not liable to third persons with whom he has no contractual relations, for negligence in the manufacture or sale of an article. 24 R. C. L., 512, Sec. 804 and cases cited. The general rule is grounded, on the leading case of Winterbottom v. Wright, 10 M. & W. 109. This case has been frequently followed in the United States. 120 Fed. 865, 868. To this rule, however, many courts have recognized that exceptions exist.
The manufacturer of an appliance which, if defective in construction, will become inherently or imminently dangerous when used for the purpose for which it was intended, owes a duty to thé public, irrespective of contractual relations, and it has been held in many cases that he will be liable to third persons for an injury directly caused by negligence in failing to make reasonable inspection of such defective appliance, where the injury was sustained while the appliance was being used for the purpose intended and where the danger might reasonably have been foreseen by the manufacturer.
An examination of the cases cited will disclose that while the rule was originally applied where the article of sale was "inherently" or "imminently" dangerous, it is now commonly invoked in cases where the dangerous character of the thing is made imminent by defective construction, which is the result of negligence, or would be • discoverable upon exercise of ordinary care in making a reasonable inspection.
The rule applicable to the instant case and sustained by both the current and weight of authority, is stated by Cordoza, J., in the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Car Co. 217 N. Y. 382; 111 N. E. 1050; L. R. A. 1916-F. 696.
"We hold, then, that the principle of Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397, is not limited to poisons, explosives and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are impliments of destruction. 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 in danger."
Electricity is a highly dangerous element and the frequent use of electric appliances in the home in modern times has resulted in many injuries and deaths from electricity. A tool, machine or apparatus for use in the home, which employs electricity, is such a dangerous instrumentality as would require the manufacturer or seller to use ordinary care in the manufacture and inspection, to the end that the a! tide may be so insulated as to be reasonably safe for use. Danger to members of the family' from a defective appliance of this character is one to be foreseen by the manufacturer who sells it to one of the members of the family. The defendant was the manufacturer of the electric sewing machine. As to the appliance, it purchased the" plugs and cord from other manufacturers, cut the cord and made the completed attachments. In connecting the alleged defective attachment to the cord it would be required, in order to complete it, to screw up the cap on the attachment. To all intents and purposes, the defendant'was the manufacturer of the attachment a,s well as the sewing machine. The mere'fact that it purchased the plugs from a reputable manufacturer, would not relieve it from the duty to make reasonable tests and inspections. The machine was sold for the express purpose of being used in the home, and with knowledge that there were children of tender years there, and the danger should have been foreseen. It further appears, from the evidence of plaintiff, that no instructions were given by the. company with reference to the use of the appliance nor any warning given' as to its dangerous nature. A duty rested upon the manufacturer toward the members of the family residing in the home, irrespective of contract.
It is contended, however, that in the instant case the apparatus was not being used at the time for the purpose intended. A sewing machine in a private home must necessarily remain idle a large part of the time. It is true that at the time the injuries were sustained the machine itself was not in operation; but it would be too narrow a construction to say that there would be no liability merely because, at the time of the injury, the machine was not being used for purposes of sewing. In fact , the cord attachment was charged with electricity and, as. its only purpose was to conduct electricity, it was performing' the only function it could perform. It was being used for the purpose intended.
We find no error in the record to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.
(Richards, J., concurs. Lloyd, J., concurs in judgment.)