## Facts

- A lamp-seller described as the maker and seller of “The Holliday Lamp” sold a lamp intended for ordinary indoor lighting.
- A husband bought the lamp for use in his shop by himself and his wife.
- The pleadings alleged the seller fraudulently warranted the lamp was fit for its purpose, but the lamp was actually unsafe.
- While the wife was using the lamp, it exploded and injured her due to defective construction.
- The jury found the lamp was defectively constructed but also found the seller made no fraudulent or deceitful representation and did not know of the defect.
- A verdict was directed for the plaintiffs with leave for the defendant to seek entry of a nonsuit; the defendant moved for a nonsuit based on the absence of fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether a seller of a chattel that is not inherently dangerous owes a duty in tort to a third-party user for injuries caused by a latent defect, absent fraud.
2. Whether an injured wife, not a party to the sales contract, may recover in tort where the seller’s only alleged wrong was a defective product and the jury rejected fraud.

## Decision

- The court ordered a nonsuit for the defendant.
- The wife could not recover in tort because there was no tortious misfeasance toward her independent of the contract, which was made with the husband.
- Absent fraud (or another special basis for an independent duty), a seller is not liable in tort to a third-party user for injuries caused by defects in a non-inherently dangerous chattel.

## Legal Principles

- Privity of contract generally limits recovery: duties arising solely from a sales contract are enforceable only by contracting parties.
- A seller/manufacturer of an article “not in its nature dangerous” is not generally answerable in tort to remote users for harm from an unknown latent defect discoverable only by ordinary care.
- Prior authority allowing recovery by a non-contracting user was treated as turning on fraudulent misrepresentation, not a general negligence duty to foreseeable users.
- Without fraud, deceit, or an independent tort duty, defective construction alone does not create tort liability to a third party outside the contract.

## Conclusion

The court denied recovery to an injured third-party user where a non-dangerous chattel caused injury due to defective construction but the seller neither committed fraud nor owed any independent tort duty beyond the sales contract.


Longmeid v. Holliday, 155 Eng. Rep. 752 (Ex. 1851)