Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • P
  • People v. Warner-Lambert Co.People v. Warner-Lambert Co.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

People v. Warner-Lambert Co.

Court of Appeals of New York
51 N.Y.2d 295 (1980)


Warner-Lambert Co. (defendant) is a manufacturing company that produces chewing gum. The gum is manufactured in a warehouse, with various kinds of machines and chemicals. Magnesium stearate (MS) is a dust-like lubricant that is applied to the gum. The gum then passes through a Uniplast machine and is sprayed with liquid nitrogen. The process disperses MS dust into the air, which can accumulate at the base of the Uniplast machines. MS and liquid nitrogen are considered safe and are often used in the industry; however, if enough MS dust remains in the air, it can pose a significant risk of explosion if ignited. Liquid nitrogen may cause production of liquid oxygen during a process called “liquefaction,” which is also easily ignited. One day, the plant was operating one of the Uniplast machines, and employees were removing settled MS dust. There was a sudden explosion near the operating machine, followed by a second, much larger explosion, accompanied by a fire. Six workers died, and more than 50 were injured. Warner-Lambert Co. and four officials of the corporation, Kraft, O’Mahoney, O’Rourke, and Harris (defendants), were charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Second-degree manslaughter is characterized by an awareness of a risk, and the disregard of that risk, while criminally negligent homicide, is characterized by the failure to perceive a risk. With respect to each crime, the defendant’s culpable conduct must have caused the death of the person. The prosecution offered two theories for the initial cause of the explosions, one attributed to a mechanical spark igniting the Uniplast machine and another hypothesizing that liquid nitrogen dripped onto the settled MS dust, creating liquid oxygen, which ignited. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment. The trial court granted the motion, but the appellate division reversed the order. The defendants appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)

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 448,000 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 448,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial