Source: (Page number unprinted), Chapter 2, Acing Your First Year of Law School ..., by Shana Connell Noyes, Henry S. Noyes
Delair v. McAdoo, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Nov 23 1936.
[Author:] KEPHART, Chief Justice.
... Any ordinary individual, whether a car owner or not, knows that when a tire is worn through to the fabric, its further use is dangerous and it should be removed. When worn through several plies, it is very dangerous for further use. All drivers must be held to a knowledge of these facts. An owner or operator cannot escape simply because he says he does not know. He must know. The hazard is too great to permit cars in this condition to be on the highway. It does not require opinion evidence to demonstrate that a trigger pulled on a loaded gun makes the gun a dangerous instrument when pointed at an individual, nor could one escape liability by saying he did not know it was dangerous. The use of a tire worn through to the fabric presents a similar situation. The rule must be rigid if millions are to drive these instrumentalities which in a fraction of a second may become instruments of destruction to life and property. There is no series of accidents more destructive or more terrifying in the use of automobiles than those which come from "blow-outs."
Hereafter, I singularise the bold nouns above, because I ask about their differences in general.
1. What would change if I reversed instrumentality with instrument above?
2. What of using only instrumentality twice?
3. What of using only instrument twice?