Copeland v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

187 Misc. 456, 62 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2294
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMay 2, 1946
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 Misc. 456 (Copeland v. F. W. Woolworth Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Copeland v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 187 Misc. 456, 62 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Memorandum The plaintiff claims that as she

ate two spoonfuls of mince pie furnished to her by defendant she noticed the pie did not look or taste good and had a bad odor, and then she came upon a nail (Exhibit 1, one and one-quarter inch wire nail) imbedded in the mince meat and the repulsive condition nauseated her and made her ill. The Trial Justice found for and awarded plaintiff $50.

Reliance can not be had by either party, on Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co. (151 N. Y. 107) or Comstock v. Wilson (257 N. Y. 231) for fright, or upon Stubbs v. City of Rochester (163 App. Div. 245, which was again on appeal in 174 App. Div. 904, revd. 226 N. Y. 516) for causal connection which there was furnished by the testimony of doctors, or upon the case on which plaintiff here mainly relies, Carroll v. New York Pie Baking Co. (215 App. Div. 240) for repulsive condition. In the latter case the foreign substance consisted of several cockroaches * * * imbedded in the bottom crust of the pie. They were crushed to such an extent that they * * * resembled butterflies.” While there is obvious similarity in plaintiff’s testimony to the facts and observations -in the Carroll decision (supra), the inference that a nail in pie is a repulsive condition similar to crushed cockroaches, is unwarranted. The metal nail can not be regarded in the same category as dead cockroaches which are subject to putrefaction.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for defendant dismissing the complaint on the merits, with costs.

Hammeb, Edeb and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Related

Vamos v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
165 Misc. 2d 388 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1995)
Gay v. A & P Food Stores
39 Misc. 2d 360 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1963)
Uffner v. Campbell Soup Co.
207 Misc. 21 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 Misc. 456, 62 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeland-v-f-w-woolworth-co-nyappterm-1946.