Lewis v. Terry

Citations

• 111 Cal. 39
• 43 P. 398
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 543

Syllabus

<p>Pleading.—Statement of facts in complaint held sufficient to show liability of vendors of chattel for injury resulting to third person from latent defect in the chattel.</p> <p>Id.—Warranty—Breach of Contract—Unknown Defect—Priority.—, When a tradesman sells or furnishes for use an article which is actually unsound and dangerous, hut which he believes to be safe, and warrants accordingly, he is not liable for injuries resulting from the defective or unsafe condition to a person who was neither a party to the contract with him, nor one for whose benefit the contract was made.</p> <p>Id.—Sale with Knowledge of Concealed Defect—Privity not Required—Liability for Tort.— One who sells an article which he knows to be dangerous because of concealed defects, without notice of its nature and qualities, commits a wrong, independent.of the contract, and is liable under the law of torts to any other person who is not him* self in fault, though not in privity of contract with him, for any injury which may reasonably be contemplated as likely to result, and which does in fact result therefrom.</p> <p>Id.—Bed not Ordinarily Dangerous—Negligence — Misrepresentations op Defect.—The fact that a bed is not ordinarily a dangerous instrument, though important to be considered, in case of mere negligence, cannot aid a vendor whó has represented a folding bed sold by him to be safe, when known by him to be really unsafe, but would in such case rather enhance the wrong of such misrepresentation by rendering the danger more insidious.</p> <p>Id.—Culpable Intervening Cause—Knowledge op Purchasers.—In order to render the purchasers of the unsafe and defective folding bed a culpable intervening cause, so as to relieve the vendors from liability for injury to their tenant, it must be proved that the purchasers knew of the defect in the structure of the bed.</p>