Binion v. Sasaki

California Court of Appeal

Binion v. Sasaki

41 P.2d 585, 5 Cal. App. 2d 15, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 996

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 27, 1935

DocketCiv. No. 9243

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 P.2d 585 (Binion v. Sasaki) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Binion v. Sasaki, 41 P.2d 585, 5 Cal. App. 2d 15, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 996 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, P. J.

The trial court awarded judgment for defendants in an action for damages for negligence in selling vegetables impregnated with arsenic and upon an alleged warranty that they were fit for human consumption. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff’s husband purchased the vegetables; his wife, the plaintiff, ate of them and became ill. The findings assume, rather than assert, that arsenic was in or on the vegetables when purchased. We therefore make the same assumption.

Upon competent evidence the findings absolve defendants from the charge of negligence. (Minutilla v. Providence Ice Cream Co., 50 R. I. 43 [144 Atl. 884, 63 A. L. R. 334].) Under the authorities the warranty, if any, went to the purchaser only, and the purchaser is not the party plaintiff. (Rhodes v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, 133 Or. 128 [288 Pac. 207] ; Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., 235 N. Y. 468 [139 N. E. 576, 27 A. L. R. 1533]; Welshausen v. Charles Parker Co., 83 Conn. 231 [76 Atl. 271].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Grail, J., and Scott, J., pro tem., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STEPHENS, P. J.

The trial court awarded judgment for defendants in an action for damages for negligence in selling vegetables impregnated with arsenic and upon an alleged warranty that they were fit for human consumption. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff’s husband purchased the vegetables; his wife, the plaintiff, ate of them and became ill. The findings assume, rather than assert, that arsenic was in or on the vegetables when purchased. We therefore make the same assumption.

Upon competent evidence the findings absolve defendants from the charge of negligence. (Minutilla v. Providence Ice Cream Co., 50 R. I. 43 [144 Atl. 884, 63 A. L. R. 334].) Under the authorities the warranty, if any, went to the purchaser only, and the purchaser is not the party plaintiff. (Rhodes v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, 133 Or. 128 [288 Pac. 207] ; Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., 235 N. Y. 468 [139 N. E. 576, 27 A. L. R. 1533]; Welshausen v. Charles Parker Co., 83 Conn. 231 [76 Atl. 271].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Grail, J., and Scott, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 P.2d 585, 5 Cal. App. 2d 15, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binion-v-sasaki-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack