McLaughlin v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.
New York Court of Appeals
11 N.Y.2d 62, 226 N.Y.S. 407, 181 N.E.2d 430 (1962)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
In 1952, six-year-old Frances McLaughlin (plaintiff) almost drowned in a lake. McLaughlin was rescued from the lake in an unconscious state, and a nurse suggested that McLaughlin needed more heat. Two firemen on the scene retrieved heat blocks distributed by Mine Safety Appliances Company (MSAC) (defendant). The heat blocks contained a warning that additional insulation should be used before application, but the warning was only featured on the containers. The firemen removed the heat blocks from their packaging before handing the blocks to the nurse, who then applied the blocks directly to McLaughlin’s body, causing McLaughlin third-degree burns and a need for extensive treatment. McLaughlin brought a negligence action against MSAC to recover damages for her injuries. At trial, Paul Traxler, a fireman at the scene, testified that he had been instructed by MSAC regarding the need for additional insulation prior to application. Nevertheless, the trial court instructed the jury to find MSAC liable if the jury believed that a third party obtaining the heat blocks without the warning was reasonably foreseeable. The jury returned a verdict for McLaughlin. MSAC appealed, arguing that the jury instruction constituted reversible error.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Foster, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.