Fredendall v. Abraham & Straus, Inc.

18 N.E.2d 11, 279 N.Y. 146, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 810
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 29, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 18 N.E.2d 11 (Fredendall v. Abraham & Straus, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fredendall v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 18 N.E.2d 11, 279 N.Y. 146, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 810 (N.Y. 1938).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff bought from defendant a gallon container of “ Globe Quick-Dry Fluid for Dry Cleaning.” A “ caution ” displayed thereon announced that “ the fluid contains ingredients which produce vapors, which if inhaled in large amounts, may cause discomfort and distress ” and that “Lwith reasonable care it can be used with absolute safety.” Among other “ precautions ” suggested were the following: “Always clean and dry the garment outdoors or in a room well ventilated by a cross draft. The room should be as cool as possible. After cleaning, garments should be hung outdoors or in a well ventilated room with cross draft until thoroughly dry.” Plaintiff read and understood these instructions.

She used nearly all the contents of the container in cleaning eight dresses. The cleaning was done in a small bathroom where the temperature was 83 degrees and *148 there was no cross-draft. As each dress was cleaned, it was hung up in the same room to dry. Plaintiff’s husband, who was in an adjacent room, called out to her that the odors were very strong and disagreeable.” After she had been so engaged for forty-five minutes, plaintiff was made sick by the fumes of the fluid. A judgment against defendant for the consequent damages has been affirmed as modified. The action is in form one for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability.

We think the evidence conclusively shows that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable care in the use of the fluid and that this default was an essential cause of her illness. We do not pass upon any other question.

The judgments should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., taking no part.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Related

Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Universal Oil Products
572 S.W.2d 320 (Texas Supreme Court, 1978)
Gregory v. White Truck & Equipment Co., Inc.
323 N.E.2d 280 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1975)
Alris, Inc. v. Gojer, Inc.
75 Misc. 2d 962 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1973)
Codling v. Paglia
298 N.E.2d 622 (New York Court of Appeals, 1973)
Erdman v. Johnson Bros. Radio & Television Co.
271 A.2d 744 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1970)
Barash v. K L M Royal Dutch Airlines
315 F. Supp. 389 (E.D. New York, 1970)
Sales Affiliates, Inc. v. McKisson
408 S.W.2d 124 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Schwartz v. Macrose Lumber & Trim Co.
50 Misc. 2d 1055 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
Maiorino v. Weco Products Co.
214 A.2d 18 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1965)
Gay v. A & P Food Stores
39 Misc. 2d 360 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1963)
Crotty v. Shartenberg's-New Haven, Inc.
162 A.2d 513 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1960)
Natale v. Pepsi-Cola Co.
7 A.D.2d 282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Parish v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
13 Misc. 2d 33 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1958)
Taylor v. Jacobson
147 N.E.2d 770 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Gallagher v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
3 A.D.2d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Nelson v. Anderson
72 N.W.2d 861 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1955)
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Amsterdam Color Works, Inc.
284 A.D. 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 N.E.2d 11, 279 N.Y. 146, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fredendall-v-abraham-straus-inc-ny-1938.