May v. Gillette Safety Razor Co.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

May v. Gillette Safety Razor Co.

18 Mass. App. Ct. 916

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJune 6, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 Mass. App. Ct. 916 (May v. Gillette Safety Razor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

May v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 18 Mass. App. Ct. 916 (Mass. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff does not have a claim for relief on the negligence count as we do not consider the swallowing of a razor blade a risk which the defendant is required to anticipate. For similar reasons, see Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng. Rep. 145, 151-152 (1854), and White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 10.4 (2d ed. 1980), the plaintiff may not recover consequential damages on the warranty claims even if the defendant had warranted that the blade was made of stainless steel, and the plaintiff could prove that because the blade had not shown on an x-ray, it must have been made of another material. We decline to reverse and remand where, at most, only nominal damages could be recovered. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 346 comment a (1981); Sessa v. Gigliotti, 165 Conn. 620, 622 (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

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

The plaintiff does not have a claim for relief on the negligence count as we do not consider the swallowing of a razor blade a risk which the defendant is required to anticipate. For similar reasons, see Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng. Rep. 145, 151-152 (1854), and White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 10.4 (2d ed. 1980), the plaintiff may not recover consequential damages on the warranty claims even if the defendant had warranted that the blade was made of stainless steel, and the plaintiff could prove that because the blade had not shown on an x-ray, it must have been made of another material. We decline to reverse and remand where, at most, only nominal damages could be recovered. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 346 comment a (1981); Sessa v. Gigliotti, 165 Conn. 620, 622 (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Mass. App. Ct. 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-gillette-safety-razor-co-massappct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack