Welshausen v. Charles Parker Co.

[Drew Hause]

William Welshausen vs. The Charles Parker Company
Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors
Decided June 14 1910
https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/b6...e0e4fa0830982c

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff purchased of the defendant a gun of its own manufacture, with an express warranty by its agent that the same was sound, of best quality and fit to stand the strain of proper and ordinary use, and that the barrels thereof were of the best Damascus steel. It also alleges negligence on the part of the defendant in manufacturing the gun and putting it on the market, and in allowing it to go into the hands of customers without proper supervision and inspection during and after its manufacture and before it was sold; that the gun was weak, insufficient, badly constructed, and of poor quality of steel, and that because of such defect the left barrel burst when the plaintiff was using it in the ordinary manner and with due care, and injured him.

Plaintiff lost

[J. A. EARLY]

Having just read the info, I'm sure things would be a lot different today. Parker would have settled through their attorneys and insurance today I believe.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Drew Hause

William Welshausen vs. The Charles Parker Company
Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors
Decided June 14 1910
https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/b6...e0e4fa0830982c

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff purchased of the defendant a gun of its own manufacture, with an express warranty by its agent that the same was sound, of best quality and fit to stand the strain of proper and ordinary use, and that the barrels thereof were of the best Damascus steel. It also alleges negligence on the part of the defendant in manufacturing the gun and putting it on the market, and in allowing it to go into the hands of customers without proper supervision and inspection during and after its manufacture and before it was sold; that the gun was weak, insufficient, badly constructed, and of poor quality of steel, and that because of such defect the left barrel burst when the plaintiff was using it in the ordinary manner and with due care, and injured him.Plaintiff lost

Preposterous!





.

[Mike Poindexter]

The trial court threw it out ("nonsuit") before it ever got to the jury. The appeals court upheld the dismissal, saying any warranty from the manufacturer flowed to the first purchaser, Simons Hardware, and not to subsequent purchasers. This was six years before the doctrine of product liability was introduced in Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors which extended implied warranties to the ultimate user. Negligence was supported by potential expert testimony, as the court discussed, but courts back then weren't so free in allowing experts to testify to the ultimate issue, or causation. Hence, the nonsuit. FWIW