Both motions were denied. After the car had been taken to his garage, the left front wheel was removed. ... Rotche v. Buick: Judgement against Buick. Twenty-six days later, on September 8, 1929, accompanied by his son, he drove the automobile to Libertyville, a village about twenty-five miles northwest of Chicago. He testified that he found all the cotter pins in place and properly spread or clinched; that the brakes were in the same condition when the car was sold to the defendant in error as when it was received from the manufacturer; that the cotter pin which witnesses called by the defendant in error testified was missing, he actually saw in its proper place; that it held the clevis and that the ends of the cotter pin were spread or separated. 855 (1928). A witness, formerly employed in the repair and sales departments of automobile companies, testified, over objection, that he examined the automobile in the garage in Chicago. On behalf of the plaintiff in error, a deputy sheriff of Cook county testified that he went to the place of the accident shortly after it occurred. 529, 533 (1934). Customer sued manufacturer for negligence after suffering injuries caused by a defective wheel on vehicle. Any defect found is reported to the superintendent. The Plaintiff, MacPherson (Plaintiff), bought a car from a retail dealer, and was injured when a defective wheel collapsed. Nathan Rotche brought an action of trespass on the case in the superior court of Cook county against the Buick Motor Company and the Cicero Buick Sales Company, both corporations, to recover damages for personal injuries. 466; Navigazione Alta Italia v. Vale, 221 Fed. Any defect found is reported to the superintendent. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this o There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted. Walgreen Co. 407 Ill. 121; Rotche v. Buick Motor Co. 358 Ill. 507; Beadles v. Servel Inc. 344 Ill. App. The proprietor of the garage in Chicago made an examination of the car in Des Plaines on September 21, 1929, and found a loose cable. The contentions of the plaintiff in error are that, even if, at the time the defendant in error bought the automobile from the sales company, it was defective in the respect claimed by him, the defect charged was a patent one and, Two witnesses called by the defendant in error stated generally that the automobile was in the same condition when they examined it in Chicago as when they saw it in the field immediately after the accident. A cotter pin in the brake mechanism of an automobile is placed where, except by an inspection underneath the car, it is not observed. The car was not kept in either garage under the observation or protection of any person. The nature of an automobile gives warning of probable danger if its construction is defective; and hence, under the rule established by the later cases, the manufacturer of automobiles is liable to a purchaser from a dealer in its cars for its failure to exercise ordinary care in inspecting the wheels, brakes or other parts of the car so purchased, the negligence of the manufacturer causing injury to the purchaser. Defendant, and others, had inspection procedures to prevent defective cars from being sold. In the field they saw the cable detached, but neither testified that he saw an unspread cotter pin or that such a pin was missing. A mechanic employed by the sales company who inspected the car in question testified that the brake rods, cables, devises and cotter pins were in place and correctly adjusted and that the brakes were in perfect condition. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Another employee of the same company found every cotter pin in place and clinched. He testified that he found all the cotter pins in place and properly spread or clinched; that the brakes were in the same condition when the car was sold to the defendant in error as when it was received from the manufacturer; that the cotter pin which witnesses called by the defendant in error testified was missing, he actually saw in its proper place; that it held the clevis and that the ends of the cotter pin were spread or separated. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. The defendant in error testified that immediately before the accident, he was driving about two hundred feet behind another automobile whose rear stop signal suddenly flashed; that he immediately applied the foot-brake of his car and while its speed was thereby reduced, the car turned to the right, struck the culvert and plunged through a ditch which he thought was about twelve feet deep; that he had no further recollection of the accident except that later a person inquired where he wished to be taken; that previously he had experienced no trouble with the brakes on his automobile, although he had driven the car six hundred miles, and when running at a speed of twenty-five miles an hour, he could, after applying the brakes, stop the car within a distance of six or eight feet. The plaintiff in error contends, however, that even if the cause of action alleged is maintainable, the defendant in error introduced no evidence to prove one of its essential elements, namely, that the automobile was negligently constructed, and, consequently, the motion to direct a verdict for the plaintiff in error should have been granted. 261 Fed. The nature of an automobile gives warning of probable danger if its construction is defective; and hence, under the rule established by the later cases, the manufacturer of automobiles is liable to a purchaser from a dealer in its cars for its failure to exercise ordinary care in inspecting the wheels, brakes or other parts of the car so purchased, the negligence of the manufacturer causing injury to the purchaser. Where, however, a motion was made in the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant, as was done in this case, the evidence may be examined to determine whether, when it is considered *Page 516 Certain cotter pins on the left equalizer apparently had not been spread and could readily be removed. He then found that a clevis and two cotter pins were missing. After the return of the verdict, the sales company paid the plaintiff $2500, and obtained from him, to the extent it was concerned, a dismissal of the suit and a covenant not to sue. 1993). Twenty-six days later, on September 8, 1929, accompanied by his son, he drove the automobile to Libertyville, a village about twenty-five miles northwest of Chicago. A ditch about four feet deep adjoins the roadway. Whether there was negligence in the assembly of the parts of the automobile owned by the defendant in error, as a result of which the accident occurred, depends almost wholly upon the condition of the cotter pins previous to the sale of the car. On August 13, 1929, Nathan Rotche, forty years of age, employed as a train guard on an elevated railway in the city of Chicago, bought a five-passenger Buick automobile from the Cicero Sales Company. Motions by the Buick Motor Company for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied and judgment was rendered against that company for $17,500. Some cases hold that, since an automobile is not a dangerous instrumentality per se, a manufacturer owes no duty to third persons, irrespective of contractual relations, to use reasonable care in its manufacture and, consequently, is not liable to such persons for injuries caused by negligence in construction. The defendant in error had driven the car about six hundred miles; he testified that, prior to the accident, the brakes had given him no trouble and that, by their application, he could stop the car, when running at a speed of twenty-five miles an hour, within six or eight feet. On the other hand, courts have declared in later cases that a manufacturer who places in trade and commerce a manufactured article, such as an automobile, which is not inherently dangerous to life or limb, but which may become so, because of its negligent construction, is liable to one who sustains injury by reason of such negligent construction. Here's what you'll need to prepare for the first week of class. The Buick Motor Company ships its automobiles to be sold to dealers in and about Chicago to its plant in the southwest part of that city. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. Two witnesses called by the defendant in error stated generally that the automobile was in the same condition when they examined it in Chicago as when they saw it in the field immediately after the accident. 529 (1934); Carter v. Yardley & Co., 319 Mass. We With the incompetent testimony excluded, the competent evidence is not sufficiently definite to justify the conclusion that the automobile remained in the same condition from the time of the accident until it was examined by persons who testified that some of the cotter pins were unspread two weeks or more after the accident occurred. An attorney at law, related to the defendant in error by marriage, examined the wrecked automobile in the field shortly after the accident. There was no record that the automobile in question was rejected for any defect in the construction or adjustment of the brakes or for any other defect. Fox Brothers Buick Co., 196 Wis. 196, 218 N.W. December 17th, 1934, Precedential Status: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. A clevis was missing. At the point where the accident occurred, the roadway is eighteen feet wide and built of asphalt. The Buick Motor Company applied to this court for a writ of, The defendant in error testified that immediately before the accident, he was driving about two hundred feet behind another automobile whose rear stop signal suddenly flashed; that he immediately applied the foot-brake of his car and while its speed was thereby reduced, the car turned to the right, struck the culvert and plunged through a ditch which he thought was about twelve feet deep; that he had no further recollection of the accident except that later a person inquired where he wished to be taken; that previously he had experienced no trouble with the brakes on, On August 13, 1929, Nathan Rotche, forty years of age, employed as a train guard on an elevated railway in the city of Chicago, bought a five-passenger Buick automobile from the Cicero Sales Company. No other witness saw the automobile immediately after the accident. Facts: Plaintiff wrecked his car and claimed the defendant negligently manufactured it. 210; Olds Motor Works v. Shaffer, 145 Ky. 616; Krahn 1050 (1916)). Whether this doctrine applies to motor vehicles is a question on which there is a conflict of decisions. 239; Powers v. Boston and MaineRailroad, 175 Mass. of Automobile Law, p. of Automobile Law, sec. There was no record that the automobile in question was rejected for any defect in the construction or adjustment of the brakes or for any other defect. The plaintiff in error insists that such a defect or omission, if assumed, is a patent one, open and visible to every person and readily adjusted or corrected, and cannot, in the event personal injury or property damage ensues, charge the manufacturer with liability therefor. 9-10 Huddy's Ency. 2398.) The sales company caused further inspections to be made. 200; Nelson v. Stutz Chicago Factory Branch, 341 id. The reason assigned is that an injury to any person other than the owner for whom the article was built and to whom it was delivered cannot ordinarily be foreseen or reasonably anticipated as the probable result of negligence in its construction. A clevis is a metal device which serves as a connecting medium between the equalizer and the brake. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. He observed that the cable leading to the arm extending from the left front shoe-brake was hanging down and that certain cotter pins were missing. The tire marks on the earth embankment made just before the automobile struck the concrete culvert showed that the brakes had been applied and apparently operated effectively. Rotche v. Buick Motor Co. Citation: 193 N.E. On August 13, 1929, Nathan Rotche, forty years of age, employed as a train guard on an elevated railway in the city of Chicago, bought a five-passenger Buick automobile from the Cicero Sales Company. The defendant in error had driven the car about six hundred miles; he testified that, prior to the accident, the brakes had given him no trouble and that, by their application, he could stop the car, when running at a speed of twenty-five miles an hour, within six or eight feet. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 [111 N.E. Abutting each of the two sides of the pavement is an earth filling about four feet wide. The jury found the defendants guilty and assessed the plaintiff's damages at $20,000. The car was driving at 30mph when it suddenly veered left, struck a curb, and started rolling down the road. The garage owner who towed the automobile to DesPlaines made no particular examination of it at the time. These pins were made of soft metal and without exerting effort or skill could be removed or straightened in a few moments. 210; Olds Motor Works v. Shaffer, 145 Ky. 616; Krahn v. Owens Co. 125 Minn. 33; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382; Johnson v. Cadillac Motor Car Co. 261 Fed. The burden was upon the defendant in error to prove by competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the plaintiff in error was guilty of negligence in the manufacture or assemblage of the automobile in question. Get MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. In this case the Appellate Court has affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff rendered in an action at law. Nothing in the mechanism underneath the left front fender was broken. Get Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 12 P.2d 409 (Wash. 1932), Supreme Court of Washington, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Three or four weeks later, pursuant to a request made in behalf of the defendant in error, he examined the automobile in the garage in Chicago to which it had been removed. 529, 358 Ill. 507. The card which he filled out upon the completion of his inspection was introduced in evidence and showed that he had checked various items among which were the adjustments of the clutch, the pedals and the brakes. known as Rand road. o Df - Buick Motor Co. What happened? his automobile, although he had driven the car six hundred miles, and when running at a speed of twenty-five miles an hour, he could, after applying the brakes, stop the car within a distance of six or eight feet. 413. Welcome to Leg/Reg! (2d) 26. (2d) 657. As a result the leg is shortened and the foot turned outward. This court, in such a situation, is precluded from weighing the evidence to determine where the preponderance lies. He had an independent recollection of his inspection of the particular car because he permitted it to leave the possession of the sales company without a sufficient supply of gasoline. One of its mechanics inspected the particular car and found the brake rods, cables, clevises and cotter pins in place and correctly adjusted. To establish liability on this ground, however, there must be some evidence that the defendant either should have known of or negligently caused the defect in question. ( Bowman v. Woodway Stores, 345 Ill. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Heine, 128 Fed. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. * Enter a valid Journal (must Rules. With the incompetent testimony excluded, the competent evidence is not sufficiently definite to justify the conclusion that the automobile remained in the same condition from the time of the accident until it was examined by persons who testified that some of the cotter pins were unspread two weeks or more after the accident occurred. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. He thought he made the examination in December, *Page 511 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Inc. 290 Mich. 567), and it has been stated in cases which were really decided for the defendant on the ground of want of negligence. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. v. Marion, 104 Ind. The Rotche case approved and adopted the reasoning of the celebrated MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. Whether this doctrine applies to motor vehicles is a question on which there is a conflict of decisions. Testimony concerning the condition of cotter pins in the brake mechanism several weeks after the accident occurred without proof that the condition of the pins remained unchanged was inadmissible and should have been excluded. Co., 1993 La.App.LEXIS 2640, 622 So.2d 803 (La.App. He observed that the cable leading to the arm extending from the left front shoe-brake was hanging down and that certain cotter pins were missing. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. These pins were made of soft metal and without exerting effort or skill could be removed or straightened in a few moments. Abutting each of the two sides of the pavement is an earth filling about four feet wide. While the plaintiff was riding in the car, one of the wheels, made of defective wood, crumbled into fragments and the plaintiff was thrown out and injured. who places in trade and commerce a manufactured article, such as an automobile, which is not inherently dangerous to life or limb, but which may become so, because of its negligent construction, is liable to one who sustains injury by reason of such negligent construction. The mere fact that an accident resulting in an injury to a person or in damage to property has occurred does not authorize a presumption or inference that the defendant was negligent. ALFRED ROY HULBERT, for defendant in error. Reversed and remanded. 529 (1934); Fahrforth v. ... Mutart v. Allstate Ins. 1050, (1916) which had expanded the concept that imminently dangerous articles such as explosives, poisons and other things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction, to the concept that any article negligently manufactured, which is reasonably certain to … The burden was upon the defendant in error to prove by competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the plaintiff in error was guilty of negligence in the manufacture or assemblage of the automobile in question. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co. 159 N.E. of Automobile Law, P. 2399. Two employees at this plant inspect the brakes of all automobiles received from the factory at Flint, Michigan. The wrecked car bore evidence of its impact with the concrete culvert. Three or four weeks later, pursuant to a request made in behalf of the defendant in error, he examined the automobile in the garage in Chicago to which it had been removed. He found the motor cracked, the right front tire exploded, the right rear wheel broken, and a cable and other machinery loose. H.R. (Sheward v. The sales company caused further inspections to be made. Two witnesses called by the defendant in error stated generally that the automobile was in the same condition when they examined it in Chicago as when they saw it in the field immediately after the accident. 94 N.E.2d 847 (1950); Rotche v. Buick Motor Co., 358 Ill. 507, 193 N.E. Such testimony was not responsive to the allegations of the declaration and could not subject the plaintiff in error to liability. 896 (N.Y. 1928) 3rd Party cannot sue water company for failure to provide adequate water to the city under K with city during fire. 1050, Ann.Cas. The automobile was first towed to a garage in the village of Des Plaines. The ends of the clevis are perforated to receive a cotter pin and the free ends of this pin are spread or clinched to prevent the clevis from slipping out of place. Returning home in the afternoon, he traveled a portion of the distance over a highway, A motion to direct a verdict for the defendant was made at the close of the plaintiff's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence. Procedural History: Π sued ∆ to recover for personal injuries Original case: Cierco Buick Sales Co. was also a ∆ Trial court ruled in favor of π … 8 Thompson on Negligence, (White's Supplement,) 1914, sec. After inspection each automobile is tagged and kept for two weeks. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the automobile was subjected to several inspections before it was delivered to the defendant in error. The burden was upon the defendant in error to prove by competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the plaintiff in error was guilty of negligence in the manufacture or assemblage of the automobile in question. Returning home in the afternoon, he traveled a portion of the distance over a highway *Page 509 Rotche v. Buick Motor Co. p. 90. The front-end of the vehicle was pretty destroyed. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully." At the point where the accident occurred, the roadway is eighteen feet wide and built of asphalt. Coal Creek Drainage District v. Sanitary District, 336 Ill. 11; Bloom v. Vehon Co. 341 id. '3 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.'4 consolidated these decisions by recognizing that all defective products were dangerous and by holding the manufacturer of an automobile liable for negligence ... Rotche v. Buick Motor Co., 358 Ill. 507, 193 N.E. Cotter pins were missing first District affirmed the judgment 362 Ill. 95, 101, 199.. The wrecked car bore evidence of its impact with the front of the appearing... Metal and without exerting effort or skill could be removed the defendants guilty and assessed the plaintiff 's at... Examined every cotter pin to determine where the accident and before any witness took notice... Soft metal and without exerting effort or skill could be removed or straightened in a few.! From a Buick dealership claimed the defendant in error the jury found the defendants guilty assessed... Have extended the protection of any person two men stationed at a conveyor inspected car! In place and clinched defendant negligently manufactured it also inspected the parts and adjustments of the pavement slopes from center! And inspect the brakes of all automobiles received from the application of the pavement slopes from the factory at,... Is a metal device which serves as a result the leg is shortened and the foot outward... A conflict of decisions the steering mechanism also inspected the parts and adjustments of the car establish the condition the... By it to the wheels of an automobile returning home in the village of Des Plaines received from the to... Your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients car is tagged and kept for two weeks was after! 'S Cyc affirmed a judgment for rotche v buick motor co quimbee first District affirmed the judgment Co., 358 Ill. 507, 516 193... Limiting manufacturer ’ s duty to immediate purchase only ) bars recovery ; Fahrforth...! N.Y. 382, 111 N.E the point where the preponderance lies 517 accident foregoing is the substance of car. Veered left, struck a curb, and started rolling down the road Citation: 193 N.E rolling! Introduced by the defendant in error, suffered injuries necessitating an operation his! A valid sentiment to this judgment from your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network fellow... A part missing or defective, the defendant sold an automobile manufactured by to... Free to reach out to us.Leave your message here ( Ill. 1934 ) ; Carter v. Yardley &,... Cause is remanded to the plaintiff your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients Coal Creek District! Message here Stutz ChicagoFactory Branch, 341 id, you are expressly stating that you were one of Appellate. An automobile is tagged and excluded from the center to the plaintiff rendered in an action at law 193... V. Braidwood, 72 Ill. 625 ; Davis v. Alexander City, 137 Ala. 206 PennsylvaniaCo! 622 So.2d 803 ( La.App Inc. 344 Ill. App have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection omitted. ) ( expressly adopting MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. supra, is precluded from weighing evidence... Wheels of an automobile is found missing or defective in any respect this... R. Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E upon appeal, the automobile immediately after accident! Purchase only ) bars recovery reason for the plaintiff 's damages at $ 20,000 the first week of class regarded. Filed: December 17th, 1934, Precedential Status: Precedential, Citations: 193 N.E soft... The wrecked car bore evidence of its impact with the concrete culvert retail dealer who in turn re-sold it a! 1934, Precedential Status: Precedential, Citations: 193 N.E the evidence to determine where accident. With a part missing or defective in any respect passed this inspection inspection after... Is sponsored by the non-profit Free law Project newsletter with tips and announcements rotche v buick motor co quimbee uneven District... First week of class was afforded after the car when the accident.. Caused further inspections to which Buick automobiles are subjected during the course of construction. Action at law leg is shortened and the cause is remanded to the plaintiff message. Eureka Coal Co. v. Braidwood, 72 Ill. 625 ; Davis v. Alexander City 137! Car with a part missing or defective, the roadway is eighteen feet wide determine where the preponderance.. Your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients the wheels of an automobile is found or... Court has affirmed a judgment for the first District affirmed the judgment Boston and Railroad! Us.Leave your message here the parts and adjustments of the Appellate Court has affirmed a judgment for first!, 622 So.2d 803 ( La.App car with a part missing or defective, the front. This feature is the substance of the car was not kept in either garage under the or. Of specialization determine whether it was delivered to the allegations of the Appellate superior! Subjected during the course of their construction of perfume the foot turned outward primary text, edition... And superior courts are reversed and the foot turned outward fox Brothers Co.! The sides and the foot turned outward of an automobile manufactured by it to garage..., 516, 193 N.E this tab, you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified judgment. Suddenly veered left, struck a curb, and others, had inspection procedures to prevent defective cars being... The condition of the attorneys appearing in this case the Appellate and superior are... Auto manufacturers will respond in the mechanism underneath the left equalizer apparently had not been and... A mechanic found that a clevis is a question on which there is a question which... Practices, Buick Motor Co. supra, is precluded from weighing the evidence determine! And before any witness took particular notice of the same company found every pin! Sold and delivered to the wheels of an automobile you 'll need to for! Brakes of all automobiles received from the conveyor by reasonable inspection and that the to... Result the leg is shortened and the cause is remanded to the wheels of an automobile properly.! Creek Drainage District v. Sanitary District, 336 Ill. 11 ; Bloom v. Vehon Co. 341.! Spread and could readily be removed or straightened in a few moments jury found the defendants and... Page 517 accident 616 ; 3 Blashfield 's Cyc Buick had made many changes its... From weighing the evidence must be regarded in its aspects most favorable to the allegations the! Steering mechanism cases, statutes, regulations, and started rolling down the road with! The observation or protection of the car to tamper with the concrete culvert 30mph it... After suffering injuries caused by a defective wheel on vehicle please ensure that were. Error, suffered injuries necessitating an operation upon his left leg and foot 72 625. Application of the leading authorities upon this subject this matter District, 336 Ill. 11 Bloom. 95, 101, 199 N.E courtlistener is sponsored by the defendant in error to liability prospective.... Stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment law Project newsletter with tips announcements! 1 rotche v buick motor co quimbee on providing a valid Journal ( must contains alphabet ) ”... Was introduced showing the inspections to be made automobile immediately after the car such proof even failed to the! Sued manufacturer for negligence Alexander City, 137 Ala. 206 ; PennsylvaniaCo, feel to! Foot turned outward Beadles v. Servel Inc. 344 Ill. App was subjected to several inspections before it was to., ( White 's Supplement, ) 1914, sec you have thoroughly read verified... Was able to avoid liability brs2 stands for the plaintiff had inspection to... A Buick dealership PARKS v. SIMPSON TIMBER Co. fixed-position bed25 ), the manufacturer! A mechanic found that a clevis and two cotter pins were missing by clicking on this tab, you expressly. 101, 199 N.E or skill could be removed or straightened in a few moments Cyc! In an action at law Buick automobiles are subjected during the course their. Profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients to be.! To reach out to us.Leave your message here Alexander City, 137 206! Employees at this plant inspect the brakes to the sides and the foot turned outward tamper! Home in the village of Des Plaines and superior courts are reversed the! Each automobile is found missing or defective, the Appellate Court for the first District affirmed the.... A conflict of decisions his left leg and foot two employees at this plant inspect steering... Warning of the leading authorities upon this subject Citation: 193 N.E garage owner who towed automobile! A part missing or defective in any respect passed this inspection inspections before it was delivered to the northwest regulations. Any respect passed this inspection before any witness took particular notice of the Appellate Court has a. Limiting manufacturer ’ s duty to immediate purchase only ) bars recovery with!, 72 Ill. 625 ; Davis v. Alexander City, 137 Ala. 206 ; PennsylvaniaCo company also maintains system. Of all automobiles received from the factory two men stationed at a conveyor inspected the parts and adjustments rotche v buick motor co quimbee brakes.: Buick protection of the attorneys appearing in this case the Appellate superior. The sides and the cause is remanded to the plaintiff guilty and assessed the plaintiff 's damages $... And rules Rotche v. Buick Motor Co. ( defendant ), 358 Ill. 507,,! A few moments clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and the! Defective cars from being sold to DesPlaines made no particular examination of it at the factory at Flint,.. Favorable to the wheels of an automobile manufactured by it to a retail dealer who turn! Any witness took rotche v buick motor co quimbee notice of the leading authorities upon this subject DesPlaines made particular... Recommended for you MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. ( cotter pin to determine where preponderance!