Poore v. Edgar Bros. Co.

California Court of Appeal May 22, 1939 No. Civ. 2086Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a vendor who replaces automobile window glass with non-safety glass is not liable for injuries caused by that glass breaking during a collision, as the glass is not inherently dangerous and the collision constitutes an intervening cause.

Issues

Whether a complaint alleging that a vendor replaced automobile glass with an inferior grade states a cause of action for negligence.
Whether the use of ordinary glass in an automobile window renders the vehicle inherently or imminently dangerous.
Whether the vendor's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of injuries sustained from a collision.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“These rules have no application where an article is not inherently dangerous for its intended use, and where it becomes dangerous only when something else intervenes.”

“We think it appears as a matter of law that the respondent’s negligence, if any, was not the proximate cause of the appellant’s injury.”

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. The appeal is from a judgment of dismissal "following the sustaining of a demurrer to a second amended complaint. The sole question presented is whether this complaint stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

On January 29, 1937, one Dan Poore purchased from the respondent a second-hand 1936 Ford automobile. On February 5, 1937, while riding in this car, the appellant was injured by broken glass from the right front door thereof, the glass being broken in a collision between that car and another automobile. At that time section 675.5 of the Vehicle Code required safety glass on any new motor vehicle sold after January 1, 1936, but there was no su-ch provision in connection with the sale of a second-hand ear.

The gist of the complaint is that shatter-proof glass was the standard and advertised equipment of 1936 Ford cars; that the respondent was guilty of negligence in that it had knowingly replaced the glass in the right front door of this ear with

[8]

an inferior grade of glass; that without fault of the appellant the glass in this door wTas brokén by a blow which would not have broken shatter-proof glass; and that such negligence on the part of the respondent was the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the appellant.

The appellant relies upon the principles laid down in

MacPherson

Buick Motor Co.,

217 N. Y. 382 [111 N. E. 1050, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 440, L. R. A. 1916F, 696], and approved in

Kalash

Los Angeles Ladder Co.,

1 Cal. (2d) 229 [34 Pac. (2d) 481], to the general effect that the manufacturer of an article, knowing that it is to be used by others than the immediate purchaser, is liable to such others for injury which is directly traceable to negligence on the part of the manufacturer, if the nature of the article is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made and, further, that when a manufacturer or vendor sells an article which because of known structural weaknesses will be inherently dangerous to those using it for the purpose for which it was manufactured or sold, such defects and such purpose being known, the manufacturer or vendor will be held liable to respond in damages to one who is injured while using the article for that purpose, in the absence of contributory negligence or other valid defense.

Poore v. Edgar Bros. Co.

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief