Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SOLOMON v. WHITE MOTOR CO.

July 18, 1957

Fred SOLOMON, Plaintiff,
v.
The WHITE MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCILVAINE

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case in respect to liability, the defendant had filed a motion for a directed verdict. When such a motion is filed:

'* * * we are concerned solely with whether the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff, and reasonable inference to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, made out a prima facie case allowing the plaintiff to have a jury pass upon his cause of action.' Gold v. Groves, 3 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 767, 769.

 The plaintiff alleges in his complaint as follows:

 'Seventh: The plaintiff avers that The White Motor Company constructed and built the said tractor hereinabove referred to, and especially the fly wheel, fly wheel casing, housing and transmission, which was designed and constructed so defectively that it was unfit for use as a Tractor on the Highways, and by reason of said unfitness, Fred Solomon, the plaintiff herein, and as a direct result thereof, was injured severely and permanently as hereinafter set forth.

 'Eighth: The plaintiff avers that the fly wheel gave way at the time and occurrence hereinbefore mentioned due to the defective steel or the steel alloy used in the manufacture of said fly wheel, causing the fly wheel to let loose and go through the housing, and causing the damage hereinbefore mentioned, and that the said break in the fly wheel was caused by defective steel and defective workmanship.

 'Ninth: The negligence of the White Motor Company consists in the following:

 '(a) In manufacturing said fly wheel in such a manner that it was unfit for use by the plaintiff.

 '(b) In manufacturing said fly wheel with defective steel, or steel of insufficient strength for the purpose for which it was intended.

 '(c) In constructing said fly wheel of defective material.

 '(d) In manufacturing said fly wheel which was defective in workmanship.

 '(f) In not having inspected it properly after they had manufactured the fly wheel.

 '(g) In having represented it as fit for the purpose for which it was used by the plaintiff at the time of his accident.

 '(h) That the defendant then and there negligently failed to observe towards the plaintiff such care as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.