(Download) "Thomas D. Robinson and Robert M. Robinson" by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10903 # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Thomas D. Robinson and Robert M. Robinson
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10903
- Release Date : January 16, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
This action in tort and warranty arises from complex facts which require comprehensive treatment. At times relevant to the
case plaintiffs-appellants were partners in a roofing enterprise. On July 22, 1965, they purchased for use in their business
a truck specially equipped with a Marion hydraulic scissors hoist. The purpose of the hoist was to lift roofing materials
on the truck bed as high as 14 feet and to provide convenient access for workmen to roofs. Acting on appellants' behalf, the
dealership selling the truck ordered the hoist through respondent, Williamsen Idaho Equipment Co., the area distributor of
Marion products. The hoist was installed on the truck at the Marion factory in Ohio, and the combined unit was delivered directly
to the truck dealership. Appellants initially took possession in August, 1965, but returned the unit briefly to the dealership
for realignment of the truck bed. In turn, the dealership sent the unit to respondent's shop, where the realignment was completed
on or about September 1. Three weeks later, as the hoist was being used to lift gravel to a roof, the truck tipped over on its side. Appellants, who
had never before owned a truck with a hydraulic hoist, were "baffled" by the accident. They consulted with respondent's representative,
who was of the opinion that the accident was caused by uneven distribution of the load in the truck bed and appellants' inexperience
in operating a hoist. The representative later testified at trial that he instructed appellants to distribute the loads more
evenly in the future. Appellants did not recall being so instructed on that occasion, but they testified that they were aware
of the need to maintain even loads and always exercised due caution in this respect. In the meantime respondent repaired the
hoist and charged appellants' insurer approximately $1,000 for the work. Upon completion, respondent's representative apparently
expressed to appellants his belief that the unit "would do a good job."