Armstrong Packing Co. v. Clem
Decision Date | 09 November 1912 |
Parties | ARMSTRONG PACKING CO. v. CLEM. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; E. B. Muse, Judge.
Action by A. Clem against the Armstrong Packing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Flippen, McCormick, Gresham & Freeman, of Dallas, for appellant. Gibson & Calloway, of Dallas, for appellee.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries to appellee's wife, Emma Clem, brought by appellee against appellant. Armstrong Packing Company, alleging, in effect, that appellant was a manufacturing company, manufacturing, among other things, a certain brand of soap labeled or "Biggest and Best," which was placed on the market and sold, through retailers to ultimate consumers, the public generally; that some of this soap was purchased by appellee from a retailer for use, carried home, and used in the laundry of their family clothes, from the use of which said soap appellee's wife became poisoned and injured; that her hands, arms, and other parts of her body that came in contact with the soap, or came in contact with her hands and arms after the use of the soap, became poisoned and inflamed, causing her great pain and suffering, rendering her unable to perform her household duties, and she has become an invalid and will so remain the rest of her life; that appellant was negligent in the manufacture of said soap and placing it upon the market. Appellant answered by general and special exceptions and general denial, and specially that the soap was manufactured by it exclusively for sale to jobbers, never sold to retail dealers, nor did it warrant same to them. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee for $1,500, from which the packing company appeals.
The assignments that the court erred in overruling the general exception to plaintiff's petition, and the assignment that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment, raise practically the same issues, and therefore they will be considered in the same connection. The evidence, in substance, substantially supports the allegations of plaintiff's petition, in that it shows that the appellant was manufacturing washing soap for the market, selling same to jobbers, the jobbers selling to retailers, and they, in turn, selling to consumers. A retailer sold some of this soap to the appellee, whose wife used it in washing the clothes of the family, and she was injured by the use of the same in the manner alleged by plaintiff. The formula used by appellant for making the soap necessarily contained poisonous ingredients, which become harmless in the proper preparation of the soap. In the batch of soap sold to plaintiff the poison used was not neutralized, but it contained a sufficient quantity to injure plaintiff's wife in the use thereof, for which it was intended. The evidence is sufficient to show that appellant was negligent in preparing the particular batch of soap sold to plaintiff. This case, as shown by the record, was tried...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Bitulithic Co. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
...S. Blickman, Inc. v. Chilton, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 646; Johnson v. Murray Co., Tex.Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d 920; Armstrong Packing Co. v. Clem, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W. 576; Darling v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 171 Cal.App.2d 713, 341 P.2d 23, 27; Brooks v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 163 Cal.App.......
-
Dunn v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
...glass, such facts alone, if they did not compel, would, we think, certainly warrant an inference of negligence. In Armstrong Packing Co. v. Clem (Tex. Civ. App.) 151 S. W. 576, it was held that negligence was proved by evidence that a manufacturer knew that certain ingredients of an article......
-
Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. Jensen
...140 Md. 488, 117 A. 866; see note in 39 A. L. R. 999; Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397, 57 Am. Dec. 455; Armstrong Packing Co. v. Clem (Tex. Civ. App.) 151 S. W. 576, 577. Appellant's ninth proposition is We have considered all of appellant's propositions and find no reversible error. The ......
-
Karotkin Furniture Co. v. Decker
...50 Tex. Civ. App. 279, 111 S. W. 761; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Light, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 481, 117 S. W. 1058; Armstrong Packing Co. v. Clem (Tex. Civ. App.) 151 S. W. 576; Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 707; Id., 108 Tex. 356, 193 S. W. 1067; Internationa......