Levy v. Langridge

Langridge (plaintiff) was injured when a gun his father purchased from a shop owned by Levy (defendant) exploded during use. Langridge sued Levy for damages. The evidence established that Langridge’s father told Levy the gun was for his and his sons’ use, and contrary to what the ticket attached to the gun and Levy’s shopman warranted, Nock did not manufacture the gun. There was conflicting evidence about the gun’s quality, and Levy denied having given any warranty. The jury found for Langridge. Levy appealed. Langridge’s counsel argued that (1) the contract between Levy and Langridge’s father showed that Levy knew Langridge’s father bought the gun for his sons’ use, and Langridge knew of and relied on Levy’s warranty; and (2) Levy had a duty to take reasonable care not to supply a dangerous item, and Langridge was injured as a result of Levy’s breach of that duty. Levy’s counsel maintained that (1) there was no legal right to recover for damages absent a contract; (2) Levy did not violate any public duty or private right; (3) although a seller could be liable for a third person’s injury if he put a dangerous article in a position that made it likely it would injure a third person, the gun was delivered to Langridge’s father unloaded and was not actually dangerous when delivered; and (4) as suggested in Witte v. Hugur, 2 Dowl. & Ryl. 33, absent privity, a party could not recover from the manufacturer of a defective article if his injuries were not the proximate consequence of the manufacturer’s act.