Pompilio v. McGeory

283 A.D. 826, 129 N.Y.S.2d 13
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 1954
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 826 (Pompilio v. McGeory) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pompilio v. McGeory, 283 A.D. 826, 129 N.Y.S.2d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

— In this action against a retailer for breach of warranty and against the manufacturer for damages for personal injuries due to negligence, plaintiff’s proof established that he ordered a bottle of Coca-Cola by its trade name, Coke ”, at said retailer’s establishment; that he became ill immediately after drinking out of the bottle, which contained a foreign substance; that he had medical treatment therefor, and that the doctor diagnosed his illness as gastroenteritis. Judgment was entered on the verdict of a jury, awarding $452.10 to plaintiff against the manufacturer and dismissing the complaint as against the retailer. The manufacturer appeals from those parts of said judgment that pertain to it. Judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. The evidence was insufficient to establish that plaintiff’s illness resulted from his drinking of the Coca-Cola, In addition, under the law of the ease, the verdicts against the manufacture! and in favor of the retailer are inconsistent; for the trial court charged, in substance, that under subdivision 2 of section 96 of the Personal Property Law, there should be a recovery against the retailer if the jury found that there was a foreign substance in the beverage, that it was unfit for human consumption, and that it made plaintiff ill. That charge was proper (Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, 255 N. Y. 388), and no exception was taken thereto. In view of our determination above, we deem it unnecessary to consider appellant’s other claims of error. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

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)
Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority
43 Misc. 2d 1 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 A.D. 826, 129 N.Y.S.2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pompilio-v-mcgeory-nyappdiv-1954.