Magrine v. Krasnica
New Jersey Superior Court
227 A.2d 539 (1967)
- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
Magrine (plaintiff) was a patient of the dentist Vincent Krasnica (defendant). As Krasnica was administering a local anesthetic into the extreme end of Magrine’s lower gum, beyond the last tooth, via a hypodermic needle, the needle separated at the hub, leaving the entire length of the needle in Magrine’s jaw. Krasnica had assembled the needle just before the injection, and the needle had been used approximately eight times for about three weeks prior to the incident, as was Krasnica’s usual practice. Krasnica testified on oral deposition that he did not know why the needle broke but that he believed it was defective. Krasnica also did not know from whom he had purchased the needle, but he believed it was manufactured by Precision Bur Company of New York. In interrogatories, he suggested other possible manufacturers. Magrine brought an action based in strict liability, breach of warranty, and breach of contract against Krasnica for personal injuries caused by a latent defect. Magrine did not argue that Krasnica failed to do what a reasonably prudent person would or would not have done under the circumstances but, rather, that strict liability was not confined to sales and applied to service contracts, even though Krasnica was not negligent. This was a case of first impression.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, 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.
