Rosenblum v. Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co.

22 Misc. 2d 201, 203 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3245
New York Supreme Court·Decided April 6, 1960·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion for an order dismissing the complaint is granted.

“A milk bottle is a simple appliance in ordinary use not inherently dangerous ” (Cullem v. Renken Dairy Co., 247 App. Div. 742 [2d Dept.]; also Smolen v. Grandview Dairy, 301 N. Y. [202] 265). There is no allegation in this complaint based on negligence as to the nature of the defect or to show that, while in the possession of the bottle, the movant, the defendant Cooper-dale Dairy Co., should have discovered that defect. The mere fact that the bottle broke when being handled by the plaintiff is not sufficient, for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply (Curley v. Ruppert, Inc., 272 App. Div. 441).

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

Rosenblum v. Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co., 22 Misc. 2d 201, 203 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3245 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

22 Misc. 2d 201 (Rosenblum v. Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co.
32 Misc. 2d 920 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1961)