AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Wertheimer v. Edge.

30th December 1909
Page 5
Page 5, 30th December 1909 — Wertheimer v. Edge.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Important Case Under a Guarantee Clause.

This case, which is of interest both to manufacturers and users, was tried, before Mr. Justice Channell, on Thursday and Friday, the 16th and 1711 December. Mr. Wertheimer, the well-known Bond-Street dealer, sued S. F. Edge, Ltd., for £120, the cost of certain repairs to a 40 h.p. Napier car, which had been supplied to him two years previously. On return from a Continental tour, the car was taken to Maltby's garage, at Sandgate, for repair and adjustment of the magneto and ignition. During the time the engine was being run for adjusting purposes, an accident occurred, and, on the engine's being stopped, it was found that two connecting-rod bolts had given way, causing considerable damage to one cylinder and the base-chamber. The car was sent to the Napier works, but the Napier Co. was instructed not to open up for examination unless it undertook to execute the repairs free of charge under the terms of the guarantee. This guarantee essentially was: " the manufacturers undertake to set right, free of charge, any defect that may arise within three years, due to the use of defective material or workmanship." The Napier Co. said that it was unreasonable to give any such undertaking, as it had no means of ascertaining whether the fault lay with it or not. The car was, therefore, taken to

a Messrs. Deaden's garage, in London, and was there examined by experts; it was afterwards repaired, at a cost of £120, for which sum Mr. Wertheimer sued S. F. Edge, Ltd.

Mr. Wertheimer was the first witness, lie complained that the car had not run satisfactorily from the very first, but, apparently, he had rather confused the running of the six

cylinder car with a four-cylinder car of smaller power which he had had previously. He excited considerable merriment in

Court, when he complained rather bitterly of having to turn out of the car and sit on a heap of stones by the roadside, near Hamburg, on a broiling August day; but it appears that, at that time, the car was suffering from ignition troubles, due to his having himself insisted upon using a type of magneto ignition which is not usually fitted to Napier cars. A little

later, ether troubles developed themselves. According to the

evidence of the chauffeur, the set-screw, which holds down the presser-guide, or, as it is sometimes called, the valve-tappet guide, of the second cylinder, worked loose, owing to the improper locking of the locking-washer. The chauffeur stated that this set-screw was frequently slack. Eventually, during a journey from Frankfort to Darmstadt, the set-pin slacked back to such an extent that the presser-guide was able to rise so as to allow the pin which holds the presser-roller to fall out. Both pin and roller fell into the crank chamber. As is usual in such circumstances, one or other of these objects came in contact with some parts of the revolving crankshaftprobably the nut of a connecting-rod bolt ; some damage was then done to the bolt or the nut, although it was not noticed at that time. A repairer in Darmstadt fished out the roller, but failed to find the roller-pin. The complainant attempted to prove, through his witnesses, that the car had always been unsatisfactory, although it was admitted that most of the troubles had arisen from the use of a form of magneto ignition which was not usually fitted to the Napier car, but his own witnesses admitted that insufficient search was made during the Darmstadt repair for the missing pin, which was all the time in the base-chamber. The chauffeur and the Darmstadt repairer both seem to have taken it for granted that it had been poured away with such of the oil as had been drained off at the time of the repair. At the

Oulu the action was commenced. S. F. Edge, Ltd., had no knowledge of the troubles at Darmstadt and elsewhere.

The complainant employed, as experts, Messrs. O'Gorman and Critchley, who, in the course of their evidence, brought forward alternative theories for the Folkestone breakdown, the first being that the whole trouble was due to the defective material or design of the connecting-rod bolt, or that, in the process of the last overhaul at the Napier works, it had been tightened too much in order to bring one of the notches in the castellated nut accurately in line with the hole in the connecting-rod bolt, and, in doing this, the bolt had been over-strained, so that eventually it failed. The second theory was that the whole accident was caused by the Napier negligence in insufficiently locking the set-screw of the presserroller, which thereby allowed the guide to rise and the roller to fall out, and hence caused the damage.

Colonel Crompton was called, for S. F. Edge, Ltd., to show that both the broken bolt itself, and other exactly-similar bolts which did not break, and which were proved to be of identical material, were excellent txamplea both of design and material. A test, taken at the National Physical Laboratory, showed that the steel was 3 per cent, nickel steel, made by Jessop's, with a yield point of 31 tons, a breaking strain of 40 tons ; the same material yielded extremely-high figures for toughness when tested, by the hod method, with single blow on a notched specimen. .Again, when tested by repeated im pact blows on alternate sides, one piece stood 4,900 blows applied alternately to each side of it. As regards the theory put forward by the complainant's experts, he pointed out that, with such tough steel as this, it mattered little if the bolt had been tightened up even by a whole turn, as its percentage of elongation was so great that such tightening would not have materially affected the strength of the bolt. Other witnesses were called from the Napier works, to say that, when the car had last been overhauled by them, great

care was taken to ensure that all the connecting-rod bolts were

replaced and properly tightened, that none of them were overstrained, and that the presser-guide set-pins had all been tightened down and locked by proper lock-washers. The evidence, on this point, was so conclusive, that it seemed likely that at some time or other the chauffeur had forgotten to replace the leek-washer on this particular presser-guide. Mr. Shearmun, K.C., in addressing the jury for the defendant, pointed out that the Napier Co. had done all that was reasonably possible, to ensure that the car left its hands, after repair, in thoroughly-good order, and that it was unreasonable to make it responsible for such errors of judgment as were committed by the Darmstadt repairer, and for the consequences that arose therefrom. The jury apparently took this view, for the verdict was in the defendant's favour.

This action shows how important it is for manufacturers to guard themselves very carefully in the terms of the guarantee that they give with a vehicle, for, as in this case, and doubt less in many others, serious accidents arise front the careless ness of the chauffeur, or from the ignorance, or combined ignorance and carelessness, of those who execute repairs. In the course of this trial, eminent Counsel were heard to remark, that it reminded them of the celebrated case where a surgeon was sued for having left some sponges inside the body of an unfortunate client, who had been under a serious operation, and who had to have the wound eventually re-opened in order that the sponges might be taken out.


comments powered by Disqus