Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Drayton v. Jiffee Chemical Corp.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
395 F. Supp. 1081 (1975)


Facts

James Henderson was unclogging a sink drain with a chemical product when the product severely burned his daughter, Terri Drayton (plaintiff). Henderson had been given the unclogging product by the family’s landlady, Mrs. Sorrell. Drayton and her mother (plaintiff) brought suit in district court against Jiffee Chemical Corporation (Jiffee) (defendant), the manufacturer of a product called liquid-plumr. At trial, Henderson, Drayton’s mother, and Mrs. Sorrell produced uncontroverted testimony that the unclogging product involved in the accident was liquid-plumr. The bottle that Henderson used was not produced at trial. Jiffee claimed that Henderson had not actually used liquid-plumr, but rather a competing product, Mister Plumber, which was mostly made out of sulfuric acid. To support this defense, Jiffee relied in part on Henderson’s testimony, in which Henderson stated that he placed a towel over the drain after he poured the product because he had remembered something on the product’s label about an odor. The Mister Plumber label warned of an odor and directed the user to place a towel over the drain to reduce the odor. The liquid-plumr label’s only reference to odor was a statement that the product contained no odor. Jiffee also argued that the rapidness and significance of Drayton’s burns were inconsistent with liquid-plumr’s composition, as liquid-plumr consisted of only 30 percent sodium hydroxide. This composition was less toxic than the sulfuric acid in Mister Plumber. The district court considered Drayton’s claims based on the evidence presented at trial.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Battisti, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.