Torts - Gross Negligence
![handle is hein.journals/bulr40 and id is 318 raw text is: BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW
sustained by the ultimate user of the soap, despite lack of privity, is
quite similar to that of the court in the instant case. However, the
authorities relied upon in Worley, except for three, are decisions allow-
ing such liability only in the sale of food and drugs. The three cases
concerning sale of other articles, namely, shatterproof glass,24 in-
secticide25 and cigars26 are not of such import to be cited as showing the
trend of modern authority.
The court in the instant case has taken a big step toward upsetting
the rule of caveat emptor in the area of warranties, and adoption of a
similar approach by other courts would essentially make the manu-
facturer an insurer of its product. The requirement that the product in
question be one which, if improperly manufactured, would be inherently
dangerous, in order to find liability without privity, is a transparent one,
as almost anything could be included in this category.
It is interesting to note, in view of the husband-wife relationship,
that a similar result as that in the instant case would be reached under
the Uniform Commercial Code. The Code extends a seller's warranty
whether express or implied . . . to any natural person who is in the
family or household of . . . [the] buyer ....
PHILIP TIERNEY
TORTs-GRoss NEGLIGENCE. McAllister v. Maltais, 154 A.2d 456
(N.H. 1959).
Defendant and the two plaintiffs' were proceeding at 50 or 60 miles
per hour along a route which was unfamiliar to the defendant. He had
been warned previously by one of the plaintiffs, the only person in
the party familiar with the road, that it was narrow and curvy.
Rain and sleet caused ice to form on the windshield, but the defendant
24 Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., supra note 19.
25 Simpson v. American Oil Co., 217 N.C. 542, 8 S.E.2d 813 (1940). This
case might be distinguished from B. F. Goodrich v. Hammond on the ground that
the manufacturer printed an express warranty on the side of the can containing the
insecticide.
26 Dow Drug v. Nieman, 57 Ohio App. 190, 13 N.E.2d 130 (1936). In this case
the plaintiff proceeded on both negligence and breach of implied warranty
against the retailer and wholesaler. The jury found for the wholesaler, but
against the retailer with whom plaintiff was in privity. On appeal by plaintiff
from judgment for the wholesaler, the court affirmed. The court did not hold
that a vendor could be liable to a subvendor in warranty, but rather based its
affirmance on the fact that both theories of recovery were submitted to the jury,
and thus, there was no prejudice to the plaintiff.
27 Uniform Commercial Code § 2-318.
1 Defendant was driving his son-in-law's car and the two plaintiffs who were
with him at the time of the accident were his daughter and granddaughter-in-law.
They each maintained separate actions for ordinary negligence and gross negli-
gence. Their husbands sued for consequential damages.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/bulr40&div=28&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Torts - Gross Negligence
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most