Tuchman v. Lola, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Tuchman v. Lola, Inc.

208 Misc. 195, 143 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3600

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 208 Misc. 195 (Tuchman v. Lola, Inc.) 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

Tuchman v. Lola, Inc., 208 Misc. 195, 143 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was no causal connection shown between the claimed injuries and the use of defendant’s preparation. Plaintiff’s testimony alone, unsupported by competent medical evidence, was insufficient to establish that the foundation or “make-up” was the competent producing cause of the [197]*197injuries and “ the sole possible one” (Cahill v. Inecto, 208 App. Div. 191, 194). Breach of the claimed express warranty ivas not proven or that defendant’s formula contained harsh, dangerous or poisonous ingredients likely to cause injury to a normal sensitive skin (Drake v. Herrman, 261 N. Y. 414, 417).

The trial court erred in charging that some negligence could be found if the jury were satisfied that the defendant had violated the provisions of sections 6810 and 6813 of the Education Law. That issue should not have been submitted; there Avas no basis in the evidence to support a finding of any violation of the statutes.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hofstadteb, Schbeibeb and IIecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

There was no causal connection shown between the claimed injuries and the use of defendant’s preparation. Plaintiff’s testimony alone, unsupported by competent medical evidence, was insufficient to establish that the foundation or “make-up” was the competent producing cause of the [197]*197injuries and “ the sole possible one” (Cahill v. Inecto, 208 App. Div. 191, 194). Breach of the claimed express warranty ivas not proven or that defendant’s formula contained harsh, dangerous or poisonous ingredients likely to cause injury to a normal sensitive skin (Drake v. Herrman, 261 N. Y. 414, 417).

The trial court erred in charging that some negligence could be found if the jury were satisfied that the defendant had violated the provisions of sections 6810 and 6813 of the Education Law. That issue should not have been submitted; there Avas no basis in the evidence to support a finding of any violation of the statutes.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hofstadteb, Schbeibeb and IIecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 Misc. 195, 143 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuchman-v-lola-inc-nyappterm-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack