Herman v. Markham Air Rifle Co.
1918 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1272, 258 F. 475 (1918)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer or vendor of an inherently and imminently dangerous article is liable for injuries caused by its negligence to third parties, regardless of the lack of privity of contract.
Facts:
- The defendant manufactured, advertised, and sold a product known as the 'King air rifle,' promoting it as a harmless instrument for amusement.
- The defendant sold a quantity of these rifles to a wholesale dealer in St. Louis for the purpose of resale to other dealers and ultimately to individual customers.
- The defendant negligently shipped one of these air rifles loaded with shot to the wholesale dealer.
- The wholesale dealer, unaware the rifle was loaded, sold it to a retail dealer.
- The plaintiff was employed as a stockkeeper and saleswoman in the retail dealer's store and was in charge of the rifle.
- A prospective customer or visitor in the store handled the rifle, and believing it was unloaded and harmless, pulled the trigger.
- The rifle discharged the shot, which struck the plaintiff and destroyed the sight in her right eye.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a declaration (complaint) in a federal district court for trespass on the case against the defendant.
- The defendant filed a demurrer to the declaration, arguing that it failed to state a legally sufficient claim for relief.
- The U.S. District Court is now ruling on the defendant's demurrer.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a manufacturer who negligently ships a loaded air rifle, advertised as harmless, owe a duty of care to a remote third party who is injured as a result, despite the lack of privity of contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Tutthe, District Judge.
Yes. A manufacturer who negligently ships a loaded air rifle owes a duty of care to a remote third party because such an item is an inherently and imminently dangerous article. The court reasoned that the ordinary requirement of privity of contract does not apply when an article is inherently dangerous to human safety. The defendant's act of shipping a loaded rifle, after advertising it as harmless, constituted actionable negligence. The court further held that the customer's act of pulling the trigger was not an independent, intervening cause that would break the chain of causation; rather, it was a natural and probable result of the defendant's original negligence, making the defendant's negligence the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Even if the customer was also negligent, it would be a concurring cause and would not relieve the defendant of liability.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'inherently dangerous article' exception to the traditional rule of privity in contract and tort law. It signifies a crucial step in the evolution of products liability, holding manufacturers accountable for negligence that harms foreseeable, remote users of their products. By defining a loaded weapon sold as a toy as inherently dangerous, the court expanded the scope of a manufacturer's duty beyond the immediate purchaser. This reasoning helped pave the way for broader theories of liability against manufacturers, culminating in modern strict products liability doctrine.
