Court Opinion

ID: 8795025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 14:06:46.268892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:34.698484
License: Public Domain

GOXE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I am unable to concur in the opinion of the court reversing the judgment herein. The plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries of the most aggravated character by reason of the collapsing of the front wheel of an automobile manufactured by defendant, and purchased by the plaintiff about four mouths prior to the accident. The. principal defense is that the defendant purchased all its wheels from the Schwarz Company of Philadelphia, a. reputable manufacturer, who agreed to use for the spokes the best obtainable second growth hickory. This he did not do. On the contrary, it is undisputed that the spokes of the wheel in question were made of dead, “dozy” atid rotten timber, which went to pieces when the car was moving at the rate of 10 or 12 miles an hour.
The defendant had no representative in the Schwarz factory to inspect the wood put into the wheels purchased by it, and it never made any inspection itself of the wheels, which were painted with lead-colored paint before leaving the Schwarz factory. The only test applied by defendant was to drive the car for a few miles at different speeds, making frequent turns. If tire wheels had been subjected to any test, even though slight and perfunctory, it would undoubtedly have discovered the decayed spokes.
If the law, as stated in the prevailing opinion, is sustained, the owner of an automobile entirely free from fault may be injured for life by the collapse of a decayed wheel occurring a few months after its purchase, and be absolutely without redress.
It is, I think, doubtful whether, in the circumstances disclosed, an action can be brought to a successful termination against the Pennsylvania company where the wheel was manufactured. If this be so it follows that an injury may be occasioned by the grossest negligence and no one be legally responsible. Such a situation would, it seems to me, be a reproach to our jurisprudence.
The principles of law invoked by the defendant had their origin many years ago, when such a delicately organized machine as the mod-era automobile was unknown. Rules applicable to stage coaches and farm implements become archaic when applied to a machine which is capable of running with safety at the rate of SO miles an hour. I think the law as it exists to-day makes the manufacturer liable if he sells such a machine under a direct or implied warranty that he has made, or thoroughly inspected, every part of the machine, and it goes to piec.es because of rotten material in one of its most vital parts, which the manufacturer never examined or tested in any way. If however, the law be insufficient to provide a remedy for such negligence it is time that the law should be changed. “New occasions teach new duties;” situations never dreamed of 20 years ago are now of almost daily occurrence.
The law should be construed to cover the conditions produced by a new and dangerous industry, and should provide redress for such in*806juries, as the plaintiff has sustained. My own judgment is, considering the dangers to be encountered from passenger automobiles, that the manufacturer is under an implied obligation to build such cars of materials capable of doing the work required of them. He may purchase the parts of makers of high reputation, but this does not absolve him from the obligation of a personal inspection, which at least will discover obvious defects, such as decayed and “dozy” spokeq. If it be impossible for the manufacturer to inspect the wheels at his own place of business he should have a representative skilled in the business at the wheel factory to make such inspection. In other words, where the lives and limbs of human beings are at stake it is not enough for the manufacturer to assert that he bought the wheel, which collapsed four months after it was sold, from a reputable maker and thought it was made of sound material. Such an excuse might be sufficient in the case of a farm wagon or a horse drawn vehicle of any kind, but in my opinion, it is wholly insufficient in the case of a wagon propelled by gasoline, which is capable of making 50 miles an hour. What would be regarded as sufficient care in the former case might be gross negligence in the latter.
The ultimate question is—can a manufacturer of motor cars escape liability for an injury occasioned by a grossly defective wheel by proving that he purchased the wheel from a reputable manufacturer? I think this question must be answered in the negative. The law imposes the duty of constructing a safe machine upon the manufacturer. He cannot avoid that duty by buying his materials from others. He is responsible for the car sold as having been manufactured by him. In the present case the defendant’s representative sold the car to the plaintiff under an implied warranty that the wheels were made of reasonably sound material. Instead of being sound and staunch, one wheel was rotten and wholly incapable of withstanding the strain put upon it. This condition could have been discovered by subjecting the wheel to the simplest tests.
If the rule contended for by the defendant be the law, a manufacturer can sell a machine which menaces the lives and limbs of those who use it,.and escape all liability by asserting that he bought the materials from dealers whom he supposed to be careful and prudent.
I think the judgment should be affirmed.