Add to ORKGPlaintiff purchased at a retail shop some perfume manufactured by defendant. Plaintiff suffered a second-degree burn when she applied the perfume to her skin, and brought suit against the manufacturer. The lower court entered a judgment for the defendant after the jury had brought in a verdict for the plaintiff. Held, reversed, and lower court ordered to render its judgment in favor of plaintiff upon verdict returned by jury; the manufacturer was liable for negligence to the plaintiff even though there was no privity of contract between them. Carter v. Yardley & Co., Limited, (Mass. 1946) 64 N.E. (2d) 693
Plaintiff was injured when a shotgun, fired by another, exploded. The explosion was allegedly caused...
The past decade has seen dramatic developments in the law of products liability. There has been libe...
This article does not purport to be exhaustive. It does explore the extent to which classical defens...
Defendant manufacturer sold poisonous hair dye to a beautician, instructing her to warn patrons to k...
Plaintiff contracted dermatitis from the use of a mixture of ammonium thioglycolate and potassium br...
In the now famous case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company the New York Court of Appeals was faced ...
The defendant manufacturer sold a storekeeper, as a protective weapon, a tear gas gun made to resemb...
Defendant manufactured a type of building lath which was represented to the trade as practical and ...
In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co. the Washington plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer of an auto...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted the Restatement 2d, Torts, Section 400, which provides th...
Plaintiff purchased a Lithe-Line exerciser, a rubber rope forty inches long with a loop on each en...
This Note argues that if a seller and a commercial buyer are in privity, damage to a product resulti...
Plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment when a defective abrasive wheel, while ...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that comparative negligence concepts should not be extended to s...
Plaintiff. in February, 19O9. purchased from the Utica Motor Car Company, a Cadillac six-passenger t...
Plaintiff was injured when a shotgun, fired by another, exploded. The explosion was allegedly caused...
The past decade has seen dramatic developments in the law of products liability. There has been libe...
This article does not purport to be exhaustive. It does explore the extent to which classical defens...
Defendant manufacturer sold poisonous hair dye to a beautician, instructing her to warn patrons to k...
Plaintiff contracted dermatitis from the use of a mixture of ammonium thioglycolate and potassium br...
In the now famous case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company the New York Court of Appeals was faced ...
The defendant manufacturer sold a storekeeper, as a protective weapon, a tear gas gun made to resemb...
Defendant manufactured a type of building lath which was represented to the trade as practical and ...
In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co. the Washington plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer of an auto...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted the Restatement 2d, Torts, Section 400, which provides th...
Plaintiff purchased a Lithe-Line exerciser, a rubber rope forty inches long with a loop on each en...
This Note argues that if a seller and a commercial buyer are in privity, damage to a product resulti...
Plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment when a defective abrasive wheel, while ...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that comparative negligence concepts should not be extended to s...
Plaintiff. in February, 19O9. purchased from the Utica Motor Car Company, a Cadillac six-passenger t...
Plaintiff was injured when a shotgun, fired by another, exploded. The explosion was allegedly caused...
The past decade has seen dramatic developments in the law of products liability. There has been libe...
This article does not purport to be exhaustive. It does explore the extent to which classical defens...