Aрpellant, plaintiff below, sued for damages on account of injury which resulted in the loss of his leg. The injury occurred while he was operating a machine made and sold by appellee and designed for reaping and threshing small grain. The complaint alleges that the operator was required at times to go upon the top of the machine to give attention to its parts and their operation. On the top there was an iron covering over a rapidly revolving cylinder with projecting teeth or spikes. Appellant stepped on this covering which gave way or sagged under his weight causing his foot and lower leg to be caught and mangled by the cylinder. Early in 1924, appellee shipped the machine to its agent in Oklahoma. In June, 1924, the agent sold it to one Connery. Later Connery sold it to R. R. Smith Hardware Company, and in June, 1928, the hardware company sold it to appellant. The injury to aрpellant occurred on J une 29, 1929, five years after the sale to Connery. This appeal is-from an order sustaining demurrer to the complaint.
Counsel for appellant say in their brief that Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company (C. C. A.)
“The gеneral rule is that a contractor, manufacturer, or vendor is not liable to third parties who have no contractual relations with him for negligence in the construction, manufаcture, or sale of the articles he handles.”
But then he said there are three exceptions to that rule, as well settled and established as the rule itself:
“The first is that an act оf negligence of a manufacturer or vendor which is imminently dangerous to the life or health of mankind, and which is committed in the preparation or sale of an article intended to preserve, destroy, or affect human life, is actionable by-third parties who suffer from the negligence. • • •
“The second exception is that an owner’s act of negligence whieh- causes injury to one- *224 who is invited by him to use his defective appliance upon the owner’s premises may form the basis of an action against the owner. * * *
' “The third exception to the rule is that one who sells or delivers'an article which he knows to be imminently dangerous to life or limb to another without notice of its qualities is liable to any person whо suffers an injury therefrom which might have been reasonably anticipated, whether there were any contractual relations between the parties or not.”
Convincing authority is cited in support of the general rule stated in that case and the exceptions, and to each is added the independent reasoning of that able court. As to the third exсeption noted in that case, it cannot be doubted from the authorities cited, as well as from the opinion in that case, that knowledge of the vendor at the time of salе that the machine sold was imminently dangerous to life or limb is a necessary element to liability. Indeed, there could be no actionable negligence on the part of the sеller without such knowledge, because to constitute liability the machine must then be imminently dangerous, known by the seller to be so, sold without giving notice to the buyer of the danger, and the resulting injury one that could be reasonably anticipated by the seller. In the Huset Case the machine had been recently purchased from defendant and put in use shortly thereafter, when Huset suffered an identical injury in the identical way as that suffered by appellant. And Huset was not the purchaser but the purchaser’s servant in operating the machine. Huset’s complaint withstood the attack of a demurrer in the Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that he had stated a case within the third exception to the general rule, but elearly it was so held because the machine had been recently sold by defendant and because Huset not only alleged that the covering over the cylinder was weak and gave way undеr his weight, but he further alleged that the machine “was imminently and necessarily dangerous to the life and limbs of those who operated it, and it was well known to be thus dangerous by the defendant when it shipped the same and supplied it to the purchaser. * * * On August 25, 1901, the defendant sold this threshing outfit to J. H. Pifer, who started to operate it on the next day, and employed the plaintiff, O. S. Huset, as a laborer to assist him, in running it.”
Counsel appreciate this substantial difference between the Huset Case and appellant’s ease: Huset’s injury occurred immediately after the sale by defendant, appellant’s injury occurred five years after the sale by defendant and after the machine had been owned and used by others, and the kind of use and exрosure during those years it would seem to be impossible to prove with reasonable certainty. Counsel attempt to avoid this by alleging that the covering was in the same weak and dangerous condition when the machine was sold to Connery that it was in five years later when appellant was injured. On the same point they make the further allegation, obviously impossible of proof: “And the reason that the said accident had not sooner happened was not due to the fact that the said covering had been in any way weakеned or strength impaired, but was due to the fact that in the operation of the said machine that the persons operating the same and in going over and upon the same hаd not happened to step in a particular place where they might have stepped in so walking over said machine, and on which the said plaintiff did step. * * * ”
Again, there is nо direct allegation, as in the Huset Case, that defendant knew in fact that the machine was imminently dangerous to life" and limb when Connery bought it. In that respect the complaint imputes knоwledge to defendant because it manufactured the machine, and counsel contend, citing cases not applicable here on their facts, that actual knowlеdge of the dangerous defect by the seller need not be proven, but negligence may be imputed to him if he was the manufacturer and failed to exercise reasonablе care. The defect in the automobile wheels dealt with in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.,
The most serious and obvious reason against appellant’s right of recovery is the fact that the injury did not occur until after five years use of the machine, and during that time operators had stepped on and walked over the covering in safety, as the complaint expressly admits. These facts, it seems to us, are a conclusive denial and con
*225
tradiction of the allegation that the machine was imminently dangerous to life and liinb when defendant sold it. In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., supra, the court referred lo the prior case of Loop v. Litchfield,
Afiirmed.