Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co.

New York Court of Appeals · 1909 · Contracts

ContractsManufacturer liabilityNegligencePrivityprivitymanufacturer liabilityinherently dangerous articleimminently dangerous

Facts

Defendant manufactured and sold a large coffee urn battery for hotel use to a jobber, who then sold it to the hotel company of which plaintiff was an officer. On practically its first use, the central boiler's bottom was partially driven out by steam and water, severely scalding plaintiff. Plaintiff had no contractual relation with defendant, but alleged defendant knew the urn's intended use, that the urn would be highly dangerous if improperly constructed, and that defendant negligently made it defective and unsafe. The trial court instructed the jury on this negligence theory and excluded liability based on improper installation or use.

Issue

May a manufacturer and vendor of an inherently dangerous appliance be held liable in negligence to an injured third party who is not in contractual privity with the manufacturer, where the appliance was negligently constructed so as to be imminently dangerous when used as intended? Also, did prejudicial evidentiary errors require reversal despite the viability of the negligence theory?

Rule

When a manufacturer or vendor knows the intended use of an article that is of such a character that, if not carefully and properly constructed, it is liable to become a source of great danger, the manufacturer may be liable in negligence to a third person without contractual privity if negligent construction makes the article imminently dangerous in intended use and causes injury not necessarily incident to proper use. The case sounds in negligence, not contract.

🔒

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.

Blue Mesa Catering bought a commercial steam soup kettle from Front Range Food Systems, a Denver distributor, which had purchased it from Alpine Vessel Works. Alpine knew the kettles were made for restaurant serving lines. On the kettle's first ordinary use in Colorado Springs, a seam split because it had been poorly riveted at the factory, spraying boiling liquid onto employee Nora Patel.

May Nora most likely recover from Alpine despite having no contract with it?

Explanation. The majority treated the action as one in negligence, not contract. Lack of contractual privity does not bar recovery where the manufacturer knows the article's intended use, the article is of such a character that defective construction can create great danger, and negligent construction makes it imminently dangerous in ordinary intended use, causing injury. (Derived from Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co. (n.d.).)