Thomas v. Winchester
New York Court of Appeals
6 N.Y. 397 (1852)
- Written by Brian Meadors, JD
Facts
Winchester (defendant) was a manufacturer of plant extracts used for medicinal purposes. Winchester sold the extracts he made as well as extracts Winchester purchased from others. On both types of extracts, Winchester placed a label stating that the extract had been “prepared by A. Gilbert,” an employee of Winchester. Winchester sold a bottle labeled as dandelion extract to Aspinwall, a druggist. Aspinwall sold the bottle to Dr. Foord. Dr. Foord provided the bottle to his patient, Mary Ann Thomas (plaintiff). Contrary to its labeling, the bottle did not contain dandelion extract. Instead, it contained belladonna, a poison. The bottle’s contents were administered to Thomas, and she became very sick, putting her life in danger for a short time. Thomas sued Winchester, alleging negligence. Winchester defended by arguing that he was not in privity with Thomas and also that Aspinwall and Dr. Foord shared the blame. A jury found for Thomas. Winchester appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ruggles, C.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.