Thomas v. . Winchester
6 N.Y. 397 · New York Court of Appeals · 1852
Facts
Mrs. Thomas, being ill, was prescribed dandelion by her physician. Her husband purchased what was believed to be dandelion from Dr. Foord, a druggist. A small quantity of the medicine was administered to Mrs. Thomas, causing alarming effects, as it was belladonna, a deadly poison, not dandelion. The jar was labeled as "dandelion, prepared by A. Gilbert." Dr. Foord had purchased the jar from Jas. S. Aspinwall, who in turn bought it from the defendant, Winchester, all believing it to be dandelion. Winchester, a manufacturer and seller of medicinal extracts, used labels like the one in question, prepared by his employee Gilbert, for both manufactured and purchased extracts. The belladonna in question was purchased by Winchester from another manufacturer and then mislabeled.
Procedural history
The action was brought to recover damages. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, arguing lack of privity and negligence of intermediate sellers, but the judge overruled the motion. The judge charged the jury on the issue of negligence, and the jury found for the plaintiff. This court affirmed the judgment.
Issue
Can a remote vendor, without direct contractual privity with the injured party, be held liable for negligence in mislabeling a deadly poison as a harmless medicine, which subsequently causes injury?
Holding
Yes, the remote vendor (defendant Winchester) is liable for the injury caused by his negligence in mislabeling the deadly poison, despite the lack of direct contractual privity with the injured plaintiff.
Rule
When an act of negligence is imminently dangerous to the lives of others, the negligent party is liable to the injured party, whether there is a contract between them or not. This rule applies when the nature of the business and the product (like a poisonous drug falsely labeled) create an inherent danger to human life, making the injury a natural and almost inevitable consequence of the negligence. The duty to exercise caution in such cases does not arise solely from a contract of sale to an immediate vendee, but from the public danger created by the mislabeled article.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.