Soto v. E. C. Brown Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soto v. E. C. Brown Co.

283 A.D. 896, 130 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5681

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 896 (Soto v. E. C. Brown Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Soto v. E. C. Brown Co., 283 A.D. 896, 130 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants E. C. Brown Co. and Production Line Manufacturers, Inc., appeal from a judgment insofar as said judgment is in favor of the plaintiff and against said defendants, entered on the verdict of a jury in an action to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained through the negligence of the appellants in the manufacture of a pump for spraying. Judgment insofar as appealed from reversed on the law, with one bill of costs to appellants, and complaint dismissed. Respondent failed to establish negligence on the part of the appellants. The burden was upon respondent to prove that when assembled as stated in the instructions of the appellants, there was concealed a probable source of danger which could arise in the operation of the pump for a purpose for which it was intended, of which danger appellants did not give notice. The tests by respondent’s expert established that with the clamp fully tightened, separation of the hose and the nipple would not occur until a pressure of 270 pounds had been generated. On the evidence, it could not be found that the pump could generate such pressure. Respondent’s expert had never tested a pump of this nature in good condition, and he could name no company which did not use a similar nipple in the assembling of a heavy duty pump. Respondent failed to establish that the clamp was tightened before the pump was used. Appellants could reasonably expect that one purchasing a pump would convey to his employees the caution contained in the instructions which accompanied the pump to securely attach the hose. (Cf. Storm v. New York Tel. Co., 270 H. T. 103.) The casual observer could see what was the purpose of the clamp, and looseness could have been ascertained by the user by reasonable inspection. (MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 H. T. 382.) Did we not dismiss the complaint, we would hold that the implied finding of negligence on the part of the appellants was against the weight of the evidence, and order a new trial. Wenzel, Acting P. J., MaeCrate. Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

Defendants E. C. Brown Co. and Production Line Manufacturers, Inc., appeal from a judgment insofar as said judgment is in favor of the plaintiff and against said defendants, entered on the verdict of a jury in an action to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained through the negligence of the appellants in the manufacture of a pump for spraying. Judgment insofar as appealed from reversed on the law, with one bill of costs to appellants, and complaint dismissed. Respondent failed to establish negligence on the part of the appellants. The burden was upon respondent to prove that when assembled as stated in the instructions of the appellants, there was concealed a probable source of danger which could arise in the operation of the pump for a purpose for which it was intended, of which danger appellants did not give notice. The tests by respondent’s expert established that with the clamp fully tightened, separation of the hose and the nipple would not occur until a pressure of 270 pounds had been generated. On the evidence, it could not be found that the pump could generate such pressure. Respondent’s expert had never tested a pump of this nature in good condition, and he could name no company which did not use a similar nipple in the assembling of a heavy duty pump. Respondent failed to establish that the clamp was tightened before the pump was used. Appellants could reasonably expect that one purchasing a pump would convey to his employees the caution contained in the instructions which accompanied the pump to securely attach the hose. (Cf. Storm v. New York Tel. Co., 270 H. T. 103.) The casual observer could see what was the purpose of the clamp, and looseness could have been ascertained by the user by reasonable inspection. (MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 H. T. 382.) Did we not dismiss the complaint, we would hold that the implied finding of negligence on the part of the appellants was against the weight of the evidence, and order a new trial. Wenzel, Acting P. J., MaeCrate. Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 896, 130 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-e-c-brown-co-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack