Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397

N.Y. Court of Appeals

1852

Chapter

16

Title

Products Liability

Page

629

Topic

Negligence assaults the citadel of privity

Quick Notes

Dandelion extract was mislabeled with deadly extract.

Issue

o         Whether the defendant, being a remote vendor of the medicine, and there being no privity or connection between him and the plaintiffs, the action can be maintained?  Depends if the act is imminently dangerous

Procedure

Trial

o          

N.Y.

o         Affirmed

Facts

Reason

Rules

o         Pl - Thomas

o         Df - Winchester

What happened?

o         Mrs. Thomas was prescribed dandelion extract, but the bottle was mislabeled. 

o         It actually contained a poison extract called belladonna.

Purchase Chain

o         Mrs. Thomas husband purchased from Dr. Foord who purchased from Aspinwall who purchased from Winchester.

o         Thomas >> Her Husband >> Dr. Foord >> Aspinwall >> Winchester (Manufacturer)

o         Thomas is suing Winchester

Suit

o         This is an action brought to recover damages from the defendant for negligently putting up, labeling and selling as and for the extract of dandelion, which is a simple and harmless medicine, a jar of the extract of belladonna, which is a deadly poison; by means of which the plaintiff Mary Ann Thomas, to whom, being sick, a dose of dandelion was prescribed by a physician, and a portion of the contents of the jar, was administered as and for the extract of dandelion, was greatly injured.

Action

o         Df moved for non suit on the grounds the Df was a remote vendor and there was no connective, transaction of privity between him and the Pls.

o         Judge overruled.

Rule

o         The distinction is recognized between an act of negligence imminently dangerous to the lives of others, and one that is not so.

Imminently Dangerous

o         The party guilty of the negligence is liable to the party injured, whether there be a contract between them or not;

Not Imminently Dangerous

o         The negligent party is liable only to the party with whom he contracted, and on the ground that negligence is a breach of the contract.

Wagon case differs from this case

o         The defendant was a dealer in poisonous drugs.

o         Gilbert was his agent in preparing them for market.

o         The death or great bodily harm of some person was the natural and almost inevitable consequence of the sale of belladonna by means of the false label.

o         The defendant's duty arose out of the nature of his business and the danger to others incident to its mismanagement.

The Wrong Done

o         The wrong done by the defendant was in putting the poison, mislabeled, into the hands of Aspinwall as an article of merchandise to be sold and afterwards used as the extract of dandelion, by some person then unknown.

Rules

Rule

o         The distinction is recognized between an act of negligence imminently dangerous to the lives of others, and one that is not so.

Imminently Dangerous

o         The party guilty of the negligence is liable to the party injured, whether there be a contract between them or not;

Not Imminently Dangerous

o         The negligent party is liable only to the party with whom he contracted, and on the ground that negligence is a breach of the contract.

Wagon case differs from this case

o         The defendant was a dealer in poisonous drugs.

o         Gilbert was his agent in preparing them for market.

o         The death or great bodily harm of some person was the natural and almost inevitable consequence of the sale of belladonna by means of the false label.

o         The defendant's duty arose out of the nature of his business and the danger to others incident to its mismanagement.

Class Notes

Class

o         Thomas >> Her Husband >> Dr. Foord >> Aspinwall >> Winchester (Manufacturer)

o         Thomas is suing Winchester.

Before this case

• The privity doctrine provided that a party who manufactured or sold a defective product owed a duty with respect to that product only to the immediate purchaser, the party with whom the seller was in privity of contract.
• There historically had to be a direct contractual relationship between parties for a products liability action to be maintainedThis was because of the whole foreseeability issueYou likely would end up with unforeseeable plaintiffs

Foreseeability

• It was foreseeability that an end user would be affected.

This is a negligence case.