Home/Fourth Circuit/E. J. Pontifex, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an Infant, Who Sues by E. J. Pontifex, Her Father, as Next Friend v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Incorporated

E. J. Pontifex, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an Infant, Who Sues by E. J. Pontifex, Her Father, as Next Friend v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Incorporated

226 F.2d 909, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3135
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 4, 1955
Docket7009
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 226 F.2d 909 (E. J. Pontifex, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an Infant, Who Sues by E. J. Pontifex, Her Father, as Next Friend v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
E. J. Pontifex, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an Infant, Who Sues by E. J. Pontifex, Her Father, as Next Friend v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Incorporated, 226 F.2d 909, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3135 (4th Cir. 1955).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant in a personal injury case. Plaintiff was injured when she was struck in the eye by a rope pulled to start the gasoline engine of a lawn mower. Plaintiff contends that *910 there was negligence in the design of the lawn mower in that the rope was not permanently attached to a spring recoil mechanism, such as is found in the latest models of these machines, and that no warning was given of the danger of using it. We do not think, however, that it can be held to be negligence to sell an old model machine not equipped with a safety device of later models, and we find no evidence of negligence in the design or construction of the machine or of any need for warning or of any other negligence upon which a verdict for plaintiff could have been based.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Buettner v. Super Laundry MacHinery
857 F. Supp. 471 (E.D. Virginia, 1994)
American Optical Co. v. Weidenhamer
457 N.E.2d 181 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1983)
Mrs. Frances Buckley Ward, Cross-Appellant v. The Hobart Manufacturing Company, Cross-Appellee
450 F.2d 1176 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
Wilson v. Savage Arms Corp.
305 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1969)
Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
252 A.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)
Mobberly v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
211 N.E.2d 839 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1965)
Ruth M. Noel and William H. Frantz, Executors of the Estate of Marshal L. Noel, Deceased, in No. 14727 v. United Aircraft Corporation, in No. 14730
342 F.2d 232 (Third Circuit, 1965)
Tyson Ex Rel. Tyson v. Long Manufacturing Co.
107 S.E.2d 170 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Seafarers International Union of North America v. National Labor Relations Board
265 F.2d 585 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)
Kientz v. Carlton
96 S.E.2d 14 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Green v. Orion Shipping and Trading Co.
139 F. Supp. 431 (D. Maryland, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 F.2d 909, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-j-pontifex-and-judith-rae-pontifex-an-infant-who-sues-by-e-j-ca4-1955.