Legal Opinion · Dissent

Joseph W. Spangler v. Kranco, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided June 28, 1973No. 72-2357Published

1DissentButzner, Circuit Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent because I believe the district court erred in withdrawing the case from the jury. Under Virginia law, the manufacture of a product, which— though not dangerous in itself — becomes dangerous when it is used in its customary or ordinary manner, owes a duty of reasonable care to any person who might foreseeably be injured because of the product’s negligent design or manufacture. Olds v. Wood, 196 Va. 960, 86 S. *376E.2d 32, 34 (1955) (dictum); Restatement (2d) of Torts §§ 388, 395, 398 (1965). While it may be said that Kranco’s crane was not inherently dangerous, it cannot be…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. BehymerSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Grady Paul Chestnut v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1971
  3. Fauver v. BellSupreme Court of Virginia · 1951
  4. Littlehale v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966
  5. Adelbert Littlehale and Erwin Zelanko v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API