Losee v. Clute

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceProducts liabilityDutynegligencedutybuilder liabilitycompleted and accepted work

Facts

The defendants manufactured a boiler for the Saratoga Paper Company, knowing it would be used near dwelling-houses and stores in a village. The evidence tended to show the boiler was improperly constructed of poor iron, that the defendants were negligent in its construction, and that this negligence caused the boiler to explode and damage the plaintiff's property. The paper company tested the boiler to its own satisfaction, accepted it, and used it for about three months before the explosion. After that acceptance, the defendants had nothing to do with the boiler, while the company had sole and exclusive ownership, management, and control of it.

Issue

Whether the manufacturers of a boiler are liable in negligence to a third party whose property was damaged by an explosion after the purchaser had tested, accepted, and exclusively controlled the boiler for several months. More specifically, the question was whether the defendants owed any duty to the plaintiff at the time of the explosion.

Rule

When a defendant contracts to build or manufacture an item for another, and the item is accepted by the purchaser, after which the defendant has no further control or management over it, the defendant is answerable only to the employer for want of care or skill in execution and is not liable to third persons for accidents or injuries occurring after completion and acceptance. In that circumstance, no duty to the injured third person exists at the time of the accident, either by contract or by law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Buffalo, Iron Crest Fabrication built a pressurized dye tank for Harbor Weave Mill under a contract. Harbor Weave inspected the tank, approved it, and ran it for four months; during that time Iron Crest had no further role in operating or maintaining it. The tank then burst and damaged Priya Desai's neighboring warehouse.

If Priya sues Iron Crest in negligence for careless construction of the tank, what is the best answer under the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when a builder or manufacturer completes work for another, the purchaser accepts it, and the defendant thereafter has no care, management, or control, the defendant is answerable only to the employer for negligent execution and owes no duty to third persons for later injuries. Here, the mill accepted the tank and exclusively controlled it for months before the accident, so Iron Crest owed Priya no duty at the time of the burst. (Derived from Losee v. Clute (n.d.).)