Thomas v. Winchester
6 N.Y. 397 (1852) (1852)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer who negligently mislabels an imminently dangerous product, such as a poison, owes a duty of care to any person who is ultimately injured by it, regardless of a lack of direct contractual privity.
Facts:
- Defendant Winchester was a manufacturer and dealer of vegetable extracts for medicinal purposes.
- Winchester purchased a quantity of belladonna, a poison, from another manufacturer.
- Winchester's employee, Gilbert, affixed a label to the jar of belladonna that incorrectly identified its contents as 'extract of dandelion,' a harmless medicine.
- Winchester sold the mislabeled jar of poison to a druggist, James Aspinwall, in New York City.
- Aspinwall then sold the jar to another druggist, Dr. Foord, in Cazenovia.
- Plaintiff Mary Ann Thomas's physician prescribed dandelion for her illness.
- Her husband purchased the mislabeled jar from Dr. Foord, believing it to be dandelion.
- Mrs. Thomas ingested a dose from the jar and became severely ill from the belladonna poisoning.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, Mary Ann Thomas and her husband, brought an action for damages against the defendant, Winchester, in a New York trial court.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the defendant's counsel moved for a nonsuit, arguing there was no privity of contract between Winchester and the plaintiffs.
- The trial judge overruled the motion for a nonsuit.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for Mrs. Thomas's personal injury and suffering.
- The defendant, Winchester, appealed the judgment to the New York Court of Appeals, 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 manufacturer who negligently mislabels a poison as a harmless medicine owe a duty of care to a remote consumer who is injured by the product, even though there is no privity of contract between them?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruggles, Ch. J.
Yes. A manufacturer who negligently mislabels a poison as a harmless medicine owes a duty of care to a remote consumer injured by the product. The court distinguished this case from those requiring privity of contract (like Winterbottom v. Wright) by creating an exception for acts of negligence that are 'imminently dangerous to the lives of others.' The court reasoned that while a defect in a wagon might cause injury, the mislabeling of a poison is an act where death or great bodily harm is a natural and almost inevitable consequence. This imminent danger creates a public duty that transcends the contractual relationship and extends to the ultimate consumer, as the injury to a remote purchaser was a foreseeable and probable consequence of the defendant's negligent act.
Concurring - Gardiner, J.
Yes. The judgment should be affirmed on the narrower ground that the defendant violated a state statute (2 R.S. 694, § 23) that declared selling belladonna without a label indicating it was a poison to be a misdemeanor. Justice Gardiner expressed no opinion on the broader common law question of whether the defendant would be liable to the plaintiffs independent of the statute.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in the development of tort and product liability law. It established the 'imminently dangerous article' exception, a crucial first step in eroding the rigid doctrine of privity of contract, which previously shielded manufacturers from liability to end-users. By focusing on the foreseeable danger of the product rather than the contractual relationship, Thomas v. Winchester laid the groundwork for future cases, most notably MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., which would eventually eliminate the privity requirement for nearly all manufactured goods. This decision fundamentally shifted legal responsibility toward manufacturers for the safety of their products in the public market.
Unlock the full brief for Thomas v. Winchester