## Facts

- A steam boiler was manufactured by Clute and associates for a paper company, with knowledge it would be used near village dwellings and stores.
- Evidence tended to show the boiler was improperly constructed and made of poor iron.
- The paper company tested the boiler to its satisfaction, accepted it, and operated it for about three months.
- After acceptance, the manufacturer had no control, care, or management of the boiler; the paper company retained exclusive ownership and operation.
- The boiler later exploded and damaged Losee’s adjacent property.
- Losee sued the manufacturer in negligence, alleging the explosion resulted from improper construction.

## Issues

1. Whether a boiler manufacturer owes a tort duty to a non-contracting third party for property damage from an explosion occurring after the purchaser tested, accepted, and exclusively controlled the boiler.
2. Whether a steam boiler should be treated like “inherently dangerous” products for which manufacturers may be liable to remote third parties despite lack of privity.

## Decision

- The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint against the boiler manufacturer.
- The manufacturer owed no duty to the adjacent landowner at the time of the explosion because the boiler had been accepted and was under the purchaser’s exclusive control.
- The case was treated as governed by the principle limiting post-completion liability of builders or makers once control has passed to the owner.
- The court declined to extend “inherently dangerous” product reasoning to boilers on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- After a product is tested, accepted, and placed under the purchaser’s exclusive control, the manufacturer generally has no tort liability to remote third parties for later accidents absent a legally recognized duty running to them.
- A maker or builder is typically answerable to the party employing it for lack of care or skill in performance, but not for injuries occurring after completion and transfer of control.
- Foreseeability of potential harm to nearby persons or property, without more, does not create a duty to third parties when the claim rests solely on negligent construction of a non-inherently dangerous item and the purchaser controls use and maintenance.
- The “inherently dangerous” exception (as in misbranded poison cases) was not applied to an industrial boiler once accepted and operated by the owner.

## Conclusion

Because the paper company tested and accepted the boiler and thereafter exclusively owned and controlled its use and management, the manufacturer owed no duty to an adjacent property owner at the time of the explosion, and the negligence claim against the manufacturer was properly dismissed.


Losee v. Clute, 51 N.Y. 494 (N.Y. Comm’n App. 1873)