All-O-Matic Industries, Inc. v. Southern Specialty Paper Co., Inc., ALL-O-MATIC
| Decision Date | 28 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | ALL-O-MATIC |
| Citation | 374 N.Y.S.2d 331,49 A.D.2d 935 |
| Parties | INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN SPECIALTY PAPER CO., INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rogers & Wells, New York City (David F. Dobbins and Donald F. Luke, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Clune & O'Brien, Mineola (James M. O'Brien, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent Southern Specialty Paper Co., Inc.
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Mineola (E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., and Frederic H. Montfort, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent Pacific Resin Co.
Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, MARGETT, CHRIST and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action based Inter alia upon breach of express and implied warranty to recover damages for the destruction by fire of goods stored in its warehouse, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 17, 1975, in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted as to all causes of action, with costs to abide the event. The fact questions were not considered or reached.
Plaintiff converts resin-impregnated paper (manufactured by defendant Southern Specialty Paper Co., Inc. with resin supplied by defendant Pacific Resin Co.) into swimming pool filters. Its processes include the heating of the paper in an oven, a procedure which causes an exothermic reaction as the result of chemical changes. This reaction stiffens the otherwise pliable paper and renders it fit for use as a filter.
Plaintiff presented evidence that after a minor fire at its plant on June 17, 1972 it sought and obtained express assurances from defendants that the filter paper could not spontaneously ignite. Plaintiff continued to use the paper in reliance upon these express representations until a major file erupted at its warehouse on June 30, 1972. Plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Norman G. Gaylord, attributed the cause of the fire to a rare Second exothermic reaction, which caused spontaneous combustion.
The trial court charged the jury as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John R. Dudley Const., Inc. v. Drott Mfg. Co.
...been recoverable. (Potsdam Welding & Mach. Co. v. Neptune Microfloc, 57 A.D.2d 993, 394 N.Y.S.2d 744; All-O-Matic Ind. v. Southern Specialty Paper Co., 49 A.D.2d 935, 374 N.Y.S.2d 331. See Victorson v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 395, 400-401, 403, 373 N.Y.S.2d 39, 41-42, 43, 335 N.E.......
-
Arell's Fine Jewelers, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
...County of Chenango Ind. Dev. Agency v. Lockwood Greene Engrs., 114 A.D.2d 728, 730, 494 N.Y.S.2d 832; All-O-Matic Inds. v. Southern Specialty Paper Co., 49 A.D.2d 935, 374 N.Y.S.2d 331) and whether AFA was an agent for Honeywell's predecessor in interest (see, Utica Observer Dispatch v. Boo......
-
Mendelson v. General Motors Corp.
...itself (see, e. g., Potsdam Welding and Machine Co., Inc. v. Neptune Microfloc, Inc., supra; All-O-Matic Industries v. Southern Specialty Paper Co., Inc., 49 A.D.2d 935, 374 N.Y.S.2d 331), and even for injury to the product itself consequentially damaged by the defect (see Dudley Constr. v.......
-
Adobe Bldg. Centers, Inc. v. Reynolds
...examples of a business entity's unrestricted right to sue in strict liability include All-O-Matic Industries, Inc. v. Southern Specialty Paper Co., Inc., 49 A.D.2d 935, 374 N.Y.S.2d 331 (2d Dept. 1975) and Infante v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 49 A.D.2d 72, 371 N.Y.S.2d 500 (3d Dept. 1975......