Snyder v. Holt Manufacturing Co.

Action fob Personal Injuries — Defective Bolt and Nut in Harvester— Expert Evidence.—In an action for personal injuries, caused by reason of the separation of a defective bolt and nut used to connect the header and separator in a side-hill combined harvester, manufactured for and sold to the plaintiff by the defendant, the question whether the bolt and nut were proper and sufficient for the coupling together of the parts of the harvester is peculiarly one for the evidence of a qualified expert, experienced in the construction of such machinery for the purpose intended.

Id.—Written Contract of Sale—Evidence—Circumstances Attending Sale — Intention of Partees.—The written contract of sale of the harvester may be explained by reference to the circumstances under which it was made, and the matter to which it relates; and evidence of the circumstances attending the sale is admissible to aid the court in arriving at the intention of the parties in the purchase and sale of a harvester manufactured by the vendor, of a peculiar build, and intended for a particular purpose.

Id. — Warranty of Harvester—Code Provisions Part of Contract. — Where the contract expressly warranted the machines “to be made of good material, and durable with proper care,” and the circumstances proved showed that the machine was manufactured and sold by the vendor for a particular purpose, the provisions of section 1769 of the Civil Code, warranting the sale of an article of the seller’s manufacture “to be free from any latent defect, not disclosed to the buyer, arising from the process of manufacture,” and of section 1770 of the same code, that “one who manufactures an article for a particular purpose, warrants by the sale that it is reasonably fit for that purpose” are applicable, and enter into and form part of the contract of sale.

Id. — Questions for Jury — Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Patent Defect. — The questions whether the defendant was guilty of negligence in the construction and manufacture of the machine, and whether the defect was sufficiently patent to charge the plaintiff with contributory negligence, were questions of fact for the jury to determine, and not questions of law for the court, where different conclusions upon those questions might be rationally drawn from the evidence.