Commonwealth v. Feinberg
433 Pa. 558 (1969)
Rule of Law:
A vendor commits involuntary manslaughter when, acting with criminal recklessness, they sell a product they know to be dangerously toxic to customers whom the vendor knows will consume it, leading directly to the customers' deaths.
Facts:
- Max Feinberg owned a cigar store in Philadelphia's skid-row section and sold a canned heating fuel called Sterno.
- In September 1963, the manufacturer of Sterno began producing a new industrial version that was 54% methanol, a highly toxic substance, compared to the previous 3.75%.
- The new cans were identical to the old ones, except the lids were imprinted with the words 'Danger. Poison,' warnings against consumer use, and a skull and crossbones symbol.
- On December 21, 1963, Feinberg received a shipment of this new, highly toxic industrial Sterno.
- Feinberg sold approximately 400 cans of the new Sterno to customers he knew were alcoholics who would extract and drink the alcohol from the cans.
- Feinberg used coded language with these customers, such as asking them to 'make one,' and instructed them to hide the cans when leaving his store.
- Between December 23 and December 30, 1963, thirty-one people in the area died from methanol poisoning traced to the new industrial Sterno sold by Feinberg.
Procedural Posture:
- Max Feinberg was indicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter and violations of the Pharmacy Act in a Philadelphia trial court.
- After a bench trial, the trial judge found Feinberg guilty of seventeen counts of involuntary manslaughter under a misdemeanor-manslaughter theory based on violations of the Pharmacy Act.
- Feinberg, as appellant, appealed five of the manslaughter convictions to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed four of the convictions, but it rejected the misdemeanor-manslaughter theory, holding instead that Feinberg was guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on reckless conduct. The Commonwealth was the appellee.
- Feinberg, as appellant, then appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a vendor who sells a dangerously toxic product, knowing that his customers are alcoholics who will consume it as a beverage, act with the requisite recklessness to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter when those customers die as a result?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jones
Yes. A vendor who sells a dangerously toxic product with the knowledge that it will be consumed by the purchaser acts with the requisite recklessness for involuntary manslaughter if that consumption causes death. The conviction cannot be based on a violation of the Pharmacy Act, as that statute is intended to regulate only the practice of pharmacy, not the sale of general commercial products. However, the conviction for involuntary manslaughter is proper because Feinberg's conduct constituted a 'lawful act in an unlawful way.' He acted with criminal recklessness, defined as a departure from the behavior of an ordinary person that evidences a disregard for human life or an indifference to consequences. Feinberg knew his customers were consuming the Sterno, and the prominent poison warnings on the new cans meant he knew or should have known of its lethal toxicity. The victims' act of drinking the Sterno was not an intervening cause breaking causation, because their consumption was the exact result Feinberg contemplated and facilitated.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Roberts
Yes. The conviction for involuntary manslaughter is appropriate because the record clearly establishes that the appellant knew the toxic nature of the product and the exact harmful use to which his customers would put it. This case does not impose a general duty on all sellers to investigate their customers' intentions. Rather, it applies to the specific situation where a seller, like Feinberg, has actual knowledge that he is selling a dangerous instrumentality to a vulnerable person who will use it in a manner 'certain to cause serious harm.' This knowing conduct exhibits the classic reckless disregard for human life that is the core element of involuntary manslaughter.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the concept of criminal recklessness to a commercial vendor who knowingly profits from the dangerous misuse of a legal product. It establishes that a seller cannot claim ignorance or hide behind the legality of a product sale when they have actual knowledge of the purchaser's intent to use it in a life-threatening way. The decision clarifies that the causal chain is not broken by the victim's 'voluntary' act of consumption when that act is precisely what the seller foresaw and facilitated. This precedent impacts cases involving the sale of potentially dangerous products to vulnerable populations, holding sellers accountable for foreseeable deaths resulting from their conscious disregard of the known risks.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Feinberg (1969)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"