From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ritz v. Packard Motor Car Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1941
261 App. Div. 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

Opinion

February 3, 1941.


In a consolidated action by plaintiffs for damages for personal injuries, property damage and loss of services following the overturning of an automobile owned by plaintiff D'Albro and manufactured by defendant Packard Motor Car Company, the complaints were dismissed at the close of plaintiffs' case. Plaintiffs appeal. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The automobile was a month old and had been driven only 980 miles at the time of the accident. The evidence disclosed that the accident was the result of the breaking of a king-pin in the front left wheel assembly. Plaintiffs' experts testified that the king-pin was defective, and that the defect could have been discovered by inspection. In our opinion plaintiffs established a prima facie case and it was error to dismiss the complaint. ( MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382; Smith v. Peerless Glass Co., 259 id. 292.) Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ritz v. Packard Motor Car Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1941
261 App. Div. 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)
Case details for

Ritz v. Packard Motor Car Company

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET RITZ and Others, Appellants, v. PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY, a…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 3, 1941

Citations

261 App. Div. 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

Citing Cases

Sparling v. Podzielinski

Section 402 of the Restatement of Torts prescribes the duty of inspection which rests upon a middleman or…

General Motors Corporation v. Johnson

The common law rules of negligence prevail in West Virginia. Mahaffey v. Lumber Co., 61 W. Va. 571, 56 S.E.…