THOMAS V. WINCHESTER
6 N.Y. 397 (1852)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Winchester (D), an extract producer, challenged a decision which
awarded damages to Thomas (P), consumers, in their action for negligence stemming from the
mislabeling of vegetable extracts and P's inadvertent consumption of belladonna.
FACTS: D accidentally took a jar of belladonna and labeled it and sold it as extract of
dandelion, which is a simple and harmless medicine. The extract of belladonna is a deadly
poison. P's physician prescribed for her a dose of dandelion. P's husband bought the
medicine prescribed, at the store of Dr. Foord, a physician and druggist in Cazenovia,
Madison county. A small quantity was administered to P, on whom it produced very alarming
effects; such as coldness of the surface and extremities, feebleness of circulation, spasms
of the muscles, giddiness of the head, dilation of the pupils of the eyes, and derangement
of mind. The medicine administered was belladonna, and not dandelion. The jar from which it
was taken was labeled '1/2 lb. dandelion, prepared 'by A. Gilbert, No. 108, John-street, N.
Y. Jar 8 oz.' It was sold for and believed by Dr. Foord to be the extract of dandelion as
labeled. Foord purchased the article as the extract of dandelion from Jas. S. Aspinwall, a
druggist at New-York. Aspinwall bought it from D as extract of dandelion, believing it to be
such. The extract contained in the jar sold to Aspinwall, and by him to Foord, was not
manufactured by D, but was purchased by him from another manufacturer or dealer. The extract
of dandelion and the extract of belladonna resemble each other in color, consistence, smell
and taste; but may on careful examination be distinguished the one from the other by those
who are well acquainted with these articles. P sued D. P alleged that the whole injury was
occasioned by the negligence and unskillfulness of D in putting up and falsely labeling the
jar of belladonna as the extract of dandelion, whereby the plaintiffs, as well as the
druggists, and all other persons through whose hands it passed before being administered as
aforesaid, were induced to believe, and did believe that it contained the extract of
dandelion. D moved for a nonsuit.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment