Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.

Last updated
Seal of the New York Court of Appeals.svg

Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., [1] 235 N.Y. 468, 139 N.E. 576 (1922), was a products liability case before the New York Court of Appeals. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant based on implied warranty when she does not have contractual privity with him; [2] thus, a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant who sold her employer food unfit for consumption, because the defendant's implied warranty extended only to the employer.

Contents

Chysky is part of a progression of cases that influenced the products liability synthesis that emerged early in the century. The Chysky case reflects a refinement of Judge Cardozo's argument in MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. that a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser. In Chysky, Cardozo joined Judge McLaughlin's opinion, which relied on Cardozo's statement in MacPherson that the basis of liability in that case was in tort, not contract. "If the exceptions expressed in MacPherson had been a smokescreen for the basic principle that a producer of a defective product would be liable to anyone who might be expected to use it, Cardozo would have applied the MacPherson principles to permit the waitress to recover regardless of her choice not to sue in tort. Yet Cardozo joined the majority that ruled against the waitress, not Judge Hogan's silent dissent." [3]

Brief of case

Facts

Plaintiff's employer gave her a piece of cake that had been made and sold to him by the defendant. There was a nail in a cake that struck her gum, causing it to be infected to the extent that three teeth needed to be removed.

Plaintiff sued the person who sold the cake to her employer, upon the theory that he was liable to her since he had implicitly warranted (when he sold the cake to her employer) that it was fit for human consumption.

Issue

Does the provision of the Uniform Sales Act §15(1) that provides,

“there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract to sell or a sale, except as follows: 1. Where the BUYER expressly or by implication makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the BUYER relies on the seller’s skill or judgment (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose”

include a third party who does not have privity of contract with the seller if no negligence is implied?

Holding

No, said the Court of Appeals. The provision does not include a third party who does not have privity of contract with the seller if no negligence is implied. If there is no privity of contract between third persons and the seller of food, there can be no implied warranty. The benefit of warranty (either express or implied) does not run with the chattel on its resale (and thus is unlike a covenant running with land, which does give a subsequent purchaser a right of action on a warranty).

Reasoning

The Court of appeals reasoned:

Notes

The plaintiff could have sued in tort rather than in contract (implied warranty), but plaintiff limited her right to recover to a breach of warranty. This indicates the continued relevance of privity in employment cases.

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Although the word "product" has broad connotations, product liability as an area of law is traditionally limited to products in the form of tangible personal property.

A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things. The word 'tort' stems from Old French via the Norman Conquest and Latin via the Roman Empire.

Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". It has become a proverb in English. Generally, caveat emptor is the contract law principle that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing, but may also apply to sales of other goods. The phrase caveat emptor and its use as a disclaimer of warranties arise from the fact that buyers typically have less information than the seller about the good or service they are purchasing. This quality of the situation is known as 'information asymmetry'. Defects in the good or service may be hidden from the buyer, and only known to the seller.

Privity of contract Legal Principle

The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated". Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.

New York Court of Appeals Highest court in the United States state of New York

The New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in the Unified Court System of the State of New York. The Court of Appeals consists of seven judges: the Chief Judge and six Associate Judges who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate to 14-year terms. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals also heads administration of the state's court system, and thus is also known as the Chief Judge of the State of New York. Its 1842 Neoclassical courthouse is located in New York's capital, Albany.

Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability, in most common law legal systems they may either be:

<i>MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.</i>

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) is a famous New York Court of Appeals opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo that removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions.

<i>Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.</i>

In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer's attempt to use an express warranty that disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid.

<i>London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

<i>Ultramares Corp. v. Touche</i>

Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932) is a US tort law case regarding negligent misstatement, decided by Cardozo, C.J. It contained the now famous line on "floodgates" that the law should not admit "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."

<i>Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd</i>

Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd [1978] QB 791 is an English contract law case, concerning remoteness of damage. In it, the majority held that losses for breach of contract are recoverable if the type or kind of loss is a likely result of the breach of contract. Lord Denning MR, dissenting on the reasoning, held that a distinction should be drawn between losses for physical damage and economic losses.

<i>Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.</i>

Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co., 231 Mass. 65, 120 N.E. 407 (1918), is part of a progression of cases that influenced the products liability synthesis that emerged in the 1930s. These cases influenced Judge Cardozo's argument in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. that a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser. This created the law of product liability.

Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Company, 231 Mass. 86, 120 N.E. 396, 4 A.L.R. 1556

<i>Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd</i>

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.

<i>Devlin v. Smith</i>

Devlin v. Smith, 89 N.Y. 470 (1882) was a seminal case decided by the New York Court of Appeals in the area of product liability law.

<i>Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.</i>

Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp., 93 Utah 414 (1937), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Utah where the court modified a contract to avoid an unconscionable result.

<i>Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.</i>

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc, was a California torts case in which the Supreme Court of California dealt with the torts regarding product liability and warranty breaches. The primary legal issue of the case was to determine whether a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. The case was originally heard in a San Diego district court where the verdict was against the manufacturer. This verdict was appealed by the manufacturer to the Supreme Court of California which was presided by Gibson, C. J., Schauer, J., McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., and Peek, J., and the opinion was delivered by Judge Roger J Traynor.

References

  1. ↑ Full text in google books (open source)
  2. ↑ John S. Allee; Theodore V. H. Mayer; Robb W. Patryk (1984). "§1.03 Warranty and Strict Liability". Product Liability. Law Journal Press. p. 550. ISBN   978-1-58852-026-5.
  3. ↑ Nelson, William E. (Winter 1999). "Benjamin Cardozo as Paradigmatic Tort Lawmaker". Buffalo Law Review. 47 Buff. L. Rev. 117.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.