Court Opinion

ID: 7807252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:08:02.778049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:21.697545
License: Public Domain

Smith, J., (after stating the facts). It is urged there can be no recovery here because of the lack of privity between appellant and appellees, and the ease of Nelson v. Armour, 76 Ark. 352, is cited to sustain that position. The facts in that case were that plaintiff had purchased from a dealer a can of lunch tongue, which the dealer had purchased from the Armour Packing Company, the defendant, and the court held in that ease that a demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained, because there is no privity of contract between the vendor in one sale and the vendees of the-same property in the subsequent sale; and that each vendee must resort as a general rule only to his immediate vendor. No reference was made in the opinion in that case to the allegations of the complaint that the packing company had been guilty of negligence in putting up the meat for sale.  (1) If appellees are liable ait all under the evidence in this case, a recovery on account of that liability can not be defeated because of the lack of privity. The proof is that the bottles were sold to and delivered to the appellant, who was engaged in business with her husband, although so far at least as the bottles in question are concerned, the business was in her charge and under her control. It was urged that the business being conducted by her could not be hers, nor could she be a partner therein on account of the interest of her husband, as the wife can not engage in a partnership business with her husband. But whatever her relationship to her husband, in regard to this business may have been, the fact remains that she was in charge of it and was injured while handling one of the bottles in the usual and necessary course of business. This handling of the bottle by the yendee, or his employee, was necessarily within the contemplation of the parties when the sale was made, and if privity is essential to a recovery where negligence is alleged on the part of the vendor, there is such privity here as is necessary to sustain a recovery. If the vendor is to be held liable at all for his negligence, in cases of this character, there is no reason for limiting that liability in favor of the vendee individually, who may never personally be exposed to the danger resulting from this negligence. Actionable negligence has been defined as a breach of duty resulting in injury to some person to whom that duty is legally owing, and the duty here is not merely to so charge a bottle as that its contents may not be wasted, but also to exercise that care which an ordinarily prudent person would use to avoid the infliction of an injury which might reasonably be expected to follow the failure to use this care; and that duty is owing not only to the vendee, but also to his employees who perform the service which the parties must have contemplated as necessary to be performed when the sale was made.  (2-3-4-5) There is a case reported in 138 Mich. 567, the style of which is O’Neill v. James, where the facts are strikingly similar to the facts in the instant case, except that the party injured by the explosion of the bottle was an employee of the owner of the business, and there was up proof of knowledge upon the .part of defendant that the bottle which exploded had been improperly charged with the gas. In that case the plaintiff had recovered a substantial judgment which was reversed on appeal because of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the allegations of the complaint, which allegations were held sufficient to support a recovery. The court, in reviewing the contentions of the parties and the evidence .offered in support of these contentions recited that there was testimony on the part of experts, without objection on the part of defendant, that champagne cider, manufactured in the usual way, with the ordinary pressure, was safe. There was also testimony that if the pressure was increased beyond a certain limit, then the article became dangerous, and dangerous because of the likelihood of an explosion. The experts also testified that an explosion would not occur under the circumstances detailed in that case, unless the bottle had been overcharged and would be likely to occur had the bottle been overcharged. And that while the testimony of the defendant and of his bottler was positive that no champagne cider had ever been bottled for sale at a higher pressure than that which was shown to be ordinarily safe, it was stated that if there were other testimony in the case from which a jury might reasonably infer that this pressure had been exceeded, the question became one which ought to be submitted to the jury for its decision. There was opposed to this testimony, on behalf of the defendant, the testimony of experts in which they maintained that the explosion could have occurred for no reason other than an overcharge; but there was no proof of an overcharge except this expert evidence. The court held with reference to the question of negligence that the court was right in holding that in view of the testimony in that branch of the case, the issue should have been submitted to the jury; but following this statement, the court said: “There is, however, a much more serious question in the case. The testimony on both sides is that champagne cider, bottled in such bottles as were used by defendant, at a pressure of sixty pounds or under, is a harmless ordinary article of commerce, usually kept for sale where soft drinks are sold. The record also discloses that defendant did not himself charge the bottle which did the mischief. There is nothing to indicate that he ever saw it. The testimony of the bottler is that it was charged in the usual way, and sent out in the usual course of trade, and that he had no knowledge that it was improperly charged. Indeed, his testimony is that it was not improperly charged. There is no testimony tending to establish that defendant had any knowledge that the bottle was overcharged when it left his place of business, or from which an inference could be properly drawn that he had such knowledge. Under this state of facts, counsel for defendant claim: “The point we raise is that where one is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of an article of commerce harmless in itself, as the proofs show that champagne cider is, when manufactured and bottled in the ordinary maimer, he can not be held liable to a third person, who Stood in no privity of contract with him, because perchance one bottle did, for some reason, burst, in the absence of proof of knowledge of vendor of the defect.” After reviewing a number of authorities, the opinion concluded with the statement that “The plaintiff knew that champagne cider, as ordinarily manufactured and sold, was charged with a gas. As we have before stated, there is no proof from which the inference might be drawn that the defendant had knowledge that the bottle was improperly charged. The proof offered on the part of plaintiff, as well as that offered on the part of defendant, is that the apparatus used by the employees was a proper one. Under the facts disclosed by the record, a verdict should have been directed in favor of defendant.” The instant case, however, is distinguishable from the O’Neill v. James case, supra, because there is proof here, tending to show that the bottles were improperly charged and that appellees were aware of that fact, or were at least in possession of such knowledge and information on that subject as would impute knowledge to them of 'that fact. The ordinary law of principal and agent would charge appellees with any knowledge possessed by their employees, who were actually engaged in charging the bottles. The evidence in this case presents no issue for submission to the jury upon the question of the use of defective bottles, as the proof shows the bottles were purchased from a manufacturer whose bottles were of standard grade and quality, and the only theory upon which a recovery could be sustained is that appellees were guilty of negligence in charging the bottle, and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. We think the proof is sufficient to require the submission of that issue to the jury and the judgment of the court below is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to that end.