Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.
New York Court of Appeals
235 N.Y. 468, 139 N.E. 576 (1923)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Bertha Chysky (plaintiff) was employed as a waitress in a lunchroom. Chysky’s employer gave Chysky a piece of cake that Drake Brothers Company (Drake) (defendant) had manufactured and sold to Chysky’s employer. While Chysky was eating the cake, a nail that had been baked into the cake and was not visible by inspection stuck in Chysky’s gum and caused an infection that required the removal of three teeth. Chysky sued Drake for damages on the theory of implied warranty, alleging that when the cake was sold, Drake impliedly warranted that it was fit for human consumption and the implied warranty inured to Chysky’s benefit. Chysky had no contractual relation with Drake and did not know who sold the cake to her employer. The jury returned a verdict for Chysky. The appellate division affirmed. Drake appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McLaughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
