Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
41 N.Y.2d 386, 393 N.Y.S.2d 341, 361 N.E.2d 991 (1977)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Halloran (plaintiff) was an auto mechanic who used cans of refrigerant to service car air-conditioning units. The refrigerant he used was packaged and sold by Virginia Chemicals (defendant). Halloran was a very experienced mechanic, having serviced hundreds of air-conditioning units using thousands of cans of the refrigerant. When Halloran found it necessary to accelerate the flow of the refrigerant, which was often the case, he would heat water in a coffee can and put the can of the refrigerant inside the coffee can to warm it up. On one occasion, as Halloran warmed up a can of refrigerant, the can exploded, injuring Halloran. As a result, he brought a products-liability action against Virginia Chemicals. Warnings on the cans of refrigerant cautioned against using an immersion coil to heat them. Virginia Chemicals sought to introduce evidence that whenever Halloran warmed up a can of refrigerant, he always used an immersion coil. The trial court did not allow this evidence and the appellate court affirmed. Virginia Chemicals appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breitel, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
