Bower v. Corbell

9 Citing cases

  1. Crispin Company v. PETROTUB-S.A

    No. CIV-05-159-C (W.D. Okla. Sep. 28, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    A vendor who fails to exercise ordinary care to ascertain the true condition and safety of the instrumentality, and chooses to sell without notice or warning of the dangerous characteristics and dangers inherent in use thereof is liable for injuries proximately caused by use of the instrumentality.Bower v. Corbell, 1965 OK 163, ยถ 32, 408 P.2d 307, 315-16. For purposes of this motion and in construing the evidence in Petrotub's favor, the failure of Petrotub's casing (joints and/or couplings) to meet API specifications will be treated as a defect that, given the intended use of the casing, was dangerous.

  2. Kirkland v. General Motors Corp.

    1974 OK 52 (Okla. 1974)   Cited 294 times
    Holding that โ€œ[i]f the plaintiff is using the product for some purpose for which it was not intended and is consequently injured, he should not recoverโ€

    Since Crane has not been overruled or restricted, we conclude that an injured Plaintiff has a right to pitch his theory of recovery upon the time-honored doctrines of negligence with its corresponding common law defenses, with little regard to privity. Jamison v. Reda Pump Co., 190 Okla. 593, 126 P.2d 71 (broken electric switchbox); Auten v. Livingston, 201 Okla. 467, 207 P.2d 256 (allegedly defective vulcanizing machine); McAlester Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Lynch, Okla., 280 P.2d 466 (exploding soft drink bottle); Bower v. Corbell, Okla., 408 P.2d 307 (defective power saw); Barnhart v. Freeman Equipment Co., Okla., 441 P.2d 993 (defective tie rod assembly on vehicle). Another field where liability without privity has grown in Oklahoma as it has elsewhere is with respect to food.

  3. Marshall v. Ford Motor Company

    446 F.2d 712 (10th Cir. 1971)   Cited 45 times
    In Marshall v. Ford Motor Company, 446 F.2d 712 (10th Cir. 1971), it was argued Ford should have warned of the consequences of nonuse of seat belts.

    The plaintiff insists on strict liability and the defendant is not objecting. We find nothing in Bower v. Corbell, Okla., 408 P.2d 307, or in Barnhart v. Freeman Equipment Co., Inc., Okla., 441 P.2d 993, which imposes a more stringent duty on a manufacturer than that imposed by the trial court in its instructions. Plaintiff relies heavily on Larsen v. General Motors Corporation, 8 Cir., 391 F.2d 495.

  4. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Big Lots, Inc.

    Case No. 15-CV-97-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla. Oct. 13, 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Declining to dismiss breach of implied warranty claim when the complaint alleged the defendant merchant sold the product and warranted its merchantability, and that the sale actually and proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries

    A vendor who fails to exercise ordinary care to ascertain the true condition and safety of the instrumentality, and chooses to sell without notice or warning of the dangerous characteristics and dangers inherent in use thereof is liable for injuries proximately caused by use of the instrumentality.Bower v. Corbell, 408 P.2d 307, 315-16 (Okla. 1965); see also Swift, 310 P.3d at 1133 ("Under a negligence theory of recovery, a seller or supplier of a product has a duty to use reasonable care to provide adequate warnings or instructions to avoid injury to a foreseeable plaintiff."); Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 401 (1965) (setting forth a standard substantially similar to Corbell). "In addition, although a seller generally does not have a duty to inspect products, such a duty may arise if it knows or has reason to know that the product is or is likely to be dangerous."

  5. Hudgens v. Cook Industries, Inc.

    1973 OK 145 (Okla. 1974)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that where "there is competent evidence tending to show that such employer knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the independent contractor was not such a [competent] driver, and reasonable men might draw conflicting conclusions on the matter, then whether or not the employer was negligent in the discharge of his duty to select a competent contractor becomes a question to be determined by the trier of fact"

    This court stated in Marion Machine, Foundry Supply Co. v. Duncan, 187 Okla. 160, 101 P.2d 813, 816 (1940) that ordinary hauling by truck is not inherently dangerous; an automobile is not an inherently dangerous machine; and therefore, a shipper is under no duty in this state to ascertain whether the motor carrier has complied with the motor vehicle laws or to inquire into the nature and adequacy of his equipment. The proposition that a motor vehicle is not an inherently dangerous instrumentality had been at least impliedly overruled by Bower v. Corbell, 408 P.2d 307, 313 (Okla. 1965): "* * * An automobile is not inherently dangerous within itself.

  6. Barnhart v. Freeman Equipment Co.

    1968 OK 22 (Okla. 1968)   Cited 12 times
    Noting cases and citing with approval the doctrine that "he who repairs a chattel is bound to exercise reasonable care not to cause bodily harm or damage to one whose person or property may reasonably be expected to be endangered by the probable use of the chattel after the making of the repair"

    We have approved the doctrine established in MacPherson, supra, in cases involving liability of the manufacturer of defective products. Bower v. Corbell, Okla., 408 P.2d 307; Crane Company v. Sears, 168 Okla. 603, 35 P.2d 916. The principles of law declared therein are applicable to cases involving negligence in repairing, modifying or altering a product. The evidence submitted by plaintiff establishes at least a prima facie case for submission to the jury as to Freeman Equipment Company.

  7. NYE v. COX

    1968 OK 50 (Okla. 1968)   Cited 11 times
    Explaining plaintiff may establish prima facie case of negligence through circumstantial evidence

    The only limitation upon the employment of circumstantial evidence to establish the essential elements in a cause of action based upon negligence is that the inferences drawn therefrom be legitimate and rational and beyond the realm of conjecture and speculation. Bower v. Corbell, Okla., 408 P.2d 307; Guerrero v. Tiblow, Okla., 382 P.2d 120; and Coe v. Esau, Okla., 377 P.2d 815. The single inference from the circumstantial evidence necessary to the prima facie showing required of plaintiff is the propelling of the drill stem.

  8. Putt v. Edwards Equipment Co.

    413 P.2d 559 (Okla. 1966)   Cited 3 times

    Defendant cites as authority for this argument the annotation in 33 A.L.R.2d 539. Examination of cases annotated in support of such argument reflects that such cases involved facts neither present in, nor analogous to, the situation presented in this appeal. The argument that this machine was neither imminently nor inherently dangerous also was a subject of discussion in our recent decision in Bower v. Corbell, Okla., 408 P.2d 307, p. 313. We there stated that an automobile is not considered inherently dangerous, but when serviced and set in motion it becomes an inherently dangerous contrivance.

  9. Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.

    225 Pa. Super. 349 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1973)   Cited 12 times
    Alleging that helicopter manufacturer "gave no adequate warnings" in the flight manual or on the cockpit placard "of the need for instantaneous reaction in emergency power failure"

    Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 399 F.2d 121, 128 (9th Cir. 1968) (Emphasis added). See also, O.S. Stapley Co. v. Miller, 447 P.2d 248, 252 (Ariz. 1968); Toole v. Richardson-Merrell,Inc., 60 Cal.Rptr. 398, 413-414 (1967); Yarrow v. SterlingDrug, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 159 (D.S.D. 1967); Bower v. Corbell, 408 P.2d 307 (Oklahoma, 1965). Even prior to the incorporation of ยง 402A of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, into our case law, and beginning with the landmark cases of Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 330 Pa. 257, 198 A. 323 (1938), and Maize v. Atlantic Refining Co., 352 Pa. 51, 41 A.2d 850 (1945), our courts have recognized an affirmative duty on the part of a vendor to warn against dangers arising from the use of its product.