Agenda for 17th Class

1. Agenda for 17th Class • Handouts • Slides • Readings: MacPherson v Buick • Common Law (continued) • Thomas v Winchester • Loop v Litchfield • Devlin v Smith

2. Assignment for Next Class • Review any questions from today’s assignment that we don’t discuss in class • Read “MacPherson v Buick” packet • Questions to think about / Short papers • Everyone should be prepared to discuss all the questions on the last page of the “MacPherson v Buick” handout • Mandatory writing • Group 1. Qs 1 & 5 • Group 2. Qs 2 & 5 • Group 3. Qs 3 & 6 • Group 4. Qs 4 & 6 • Optional writing -- All questions that are not mandatory

3. Common Law Cases • Langridge v Levy • Father purchased gun. • Seller stated & warranted that gun was safe • Seller knew gun was not safe • Son was injured and sued • Court: Son can recover damages from seller • Injured person cannot sue for breach of contract unless s/he was a party to the contract • “Privity of contract” rule • Exception for fraud where person making misrepresentation knew another might be harmed • Winterbottom v Wright • Wright supplied mail coaches to Postmaster • Contract required them to be “safe” • Atkinson contracted with Postmaster to supply drivers • Winterbottom was employed by Atkinson • Winterbottom was injured, allegedly because the coach was not safe • Court: Winterbottom cannot recover from Wright • Because of privity of contract rule

4. Questions • 6. If Wright had sold a defective coach to Langridge, and Langridge’s wife had been injured while riding in the coach, would Wright be liable to Langridge’s wife? • 7. If the Postmaster had told Wright that the mail-coach would be used by coachmen, and Wright had said that the mail-coach could be safely used by coachmen, would Wright be liable to any coachman injured by a defective coach? • 8. If Wright had put explosives under the mail-coach seat, which had gone off while Winterbottom had been sitting on the mail-coach seat, would Wright be liable to Winterbottom?

5. Thomas v Winchester • Gilbert worked for Winchester and manufactured drugs • Mislabeled dandelion as belladonna (poison) • Aspinwall purchased mislabeled dandelion from Winchester • Mr. Foord purchased mislabeled dandelion from Aspinwall • Mr. Thomas purchased mislabeled dandelion for wife from Mr. Foord • Mrs. Thomas got very ill. • Mr. and Mrs. Thomas sued Winchester • Court: Winchester liable • Death or great bodily harm was the natural and almost inevitable consequence of selling belladonna by false label • Different from Winterbottom because imminent danger to human life

6. Questions • 1. What is the holding of this case? • 2. Was this a case where precedents clearly established a legal rule applicable to this case? • 3. What is the relationship between this case and Winterbottom v. Wright? Does it overrule Winterbottom? Does it create an exception to Winterbottom? Is Winterbottom binding precedent? Is Winterbottom irrelevant?

7. Questions • 4. Suppose Boeing makes an airplane which contains a defective part. After 5 years of safe flying, it breaks apart in midair, and all passengers die. Under Thomas v Winchester, can the airline which purchased the airplane sue Boeing for damages it incurred? Such damages might include damage to property the airline had on the airplane, including destruction of food and life jackets which were on board. If your answers to this question and the next question are different, do you think it makes sense that the manufacturer is liable in one case but not the other? • 5. Under Thomas v Winchester, can the relatives of the dead passengers on the plane mentioned in Question 4 sue for wrongful death? Wrongful death actions can ordinarily be brought by relatives for a death caused by negligence, if the deceased could have brought a tort action for injuries other than death in similar circumstances. If your answers to this question and the previous question are different, do you think it makes sense that the manufacturer is liable in one case but not the other?

8. Loop v Litchfield • Litchfield manufactured a flywheel • Flywheel allegedly defective • Litchfield sold the flywheel to Collister • Litchfield alleges he told Collister about the defect • Collister leased the flywheel to Loop • Loop was injured by flywheel • Loop sues Litchfield • Jury for Loop • Reversed on appeal (Hunt, J).

9. Devlin v Smith • Stevenson built on contract scaffolding for Smith, a painter • Scaffolding collapsed and killed Devlin • Devlin was working for Smith • Devlin’s representative sued Stevenson & Smith • Trial court • Stevenson not liable because not negligent • Smith not liable because not in privity of contract • Appellate Court (Rappallo, J.)

10. Questions • 1. What is the holding of Loop v Litchfield? What is the holding of Devlin v Smith? • 2. What does Judge Hunt in Loop v Litchfield say was the holding of Thomas v. Winchester? Judge Rapallo sees Devlin v Smith as an easy application of “the principle of Thomas v. Winchester.” By “principle of Thomas v. Winchester,” Judge Rapallo means its holding. What does Judge Rapallo think the holding of Thomas v. Winchester was? Does he agree with Judge Hunt’s interpretation the holding of Thomas v Winchester in Loop v Litchfield? Do either agree with your interpretation of the holding in Thomas v Winchester? Which formulation of the holding of Thomas v Winchester is best? • 3. Would the outcome of Loop v Litchfield be any different if it were proved that Litchfield did not warn Collister of the defect in the fly wheel? • 4. How does Judge Rapallo deal with the fact that Loop v Litchfield decided that the seller in that case was not liable? • 5. Is a defective scaffold more like belladonna, a defective carriage, a defective gun, or a defective fly wheel?

11. Questions • 6. If a manufacturer sold a defective handgun to a retailer, and the retailer sold the gun to a consumer, and the handgun exploded and injured the consumer, would the manufacturer be liable to the consumer? Would arguments based on Loop v Litchfield give a different answer than arguments based on Devlin v Smith? • 7. If a manufacturer sold a defective car to a dealer, and the dealer sold the car to a consumer, and the car exploded and injured the consumer, would the manufacturer be liable to the consumer? Would arguments based on Loop v Litchfield give a different answer than arguments based on Devlin v Smith? • 8. What do you think makes the most sense in the situations described in Questions 7 and 8? Should the manufacturer be liable in neither case? Both cases? One case but not the other?