Court Opinion

ID: 9685587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:50:31.338188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:07.950523
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from that part of the opinion of the court which holds that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding for the plaintiff on the first cause of action.
' Fred Kempf, who painted the sign, testified positively that the paint peeled from the panels on the south side of the sign “because the primer was letting go of the sheet metal surface.” This testimony is not contradicted any place in the record. A photograph which appears in the record indicates that the peeling was not uniform as! to the panels or the colors of paint, but there is no evidence that the painter was negligent or that the paint which he applied was defective.
The lease relieved the defendant from the payment of rental in the event the sign was damaged other than by the acts or omissions of the defendant. The defendant should not be required to bear the loss resulting from the defective primer which was applied to the panels by the manufacturer before they were sold to the plaintiff.