Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

E. J. Pontifex, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an Infant, Who Sues by E. J. Pontifex, Her Father, as Next Friend v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Incorporated

E. J. Pontifex, & Judith Rae Pontifex, an Infant, Who Sues by E. J. Pontifex, Her Father, as Next Friend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 226 F.2d 909 (4th Cir. 1955)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1955-11-04
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • not negligent to sell old model machine not equipped with safety features found on later models

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed E. J. Pontifex, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an Infant, Who Sues by E. J. Pontifex, Her Father, as Next Friend v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Incorporated. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
13 opinions
PONTIFEX v. SEARS, ROEBUCK COMPANY,226 F.2d 909(4th Cir. 1955)
E.J. PONTIFEX, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an infant, who sues by E.J.
Pontifex, her father, as next friend, Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK
COMPANY, Incorporated, Appellee.
No. 7009.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued October 10, 1955.
Decided November 4, 1955.
Louis B. Fine, Norfolk, Va. (Howard I. Legum, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellants.

Thomas H. Willcox, Jr., and Thomas H. Willcox, Norfolk, Va. (Willcox, Cooke Willcox, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, DOBIE, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant in a personal injury case. Plaintiff was injured when she was struck in the eye by a rope pulled to start the gasoline engine of a lawn mower. Plaintiff contends thatPage 910there was negligence in the design of the lawn mower in that the rope was not permanently attached to a spring recoil mechanism, such as is found in the latest models of these machines, and that no warning was given of the danger of using it. We do not think, however, that it can be held to be negligence to sell an old model machine not equipped with a safety device of later models, and we find no evidence of negligence in the design or construction of the machine or of any need for warning or of any other negligence upon which a verdict for plaintiff could have been based.

Affirmed.