Herrman v. Maley

Smith, C. J.,

delivered a dissenting' opinion.

The liability of the appellees is placed in the opinion in chief on two grounds: First, that rule of the common law, on which this court acted in Anderson v. Daniel, 136 Miss. 456, 101 So. 498, and which is thus stated in Am. L. Inst. Restatement L. of Torté (tent, draft No. '5j, section 260: “One who supplies, directly of through a third person, a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or from facts known to him should know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable…