Defendant Clute manufactured a boiler, knowing at the time that the purchaser was to use it adjacent to dwelling houses and stores.
The injured plaintiffs alleged that the boiler had been negligently manufactured, and sued on the theory that this breached a duty.
Appeal from the judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial district.
The appeal affirmed the judgment entered upon an order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint on the trial.
It was declared that the case came within the principle that "at the most an architect or builder of a work is answerable only to his employes for any want of care or skill in the execution thereof, and he is not liable for accidents or injuries which may occur after the execution of the contract," and that the defendants owed to the plaintiff no duty whatever at the time of the explosion "either growing out of contract or imposed by law.