Doyle v. Cont'l Baking Co.
| Citation | 262 Mass. 516,160 N.E. 325 |
| Parties | DOYLE v. CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1928 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division; John G. Brackett, Special Judge.
Action of tort by Mary Doyle against the Continental Baking Company to recover for personal injuries caused by piece of tin embedded in a loaf of bread. Finding for plaintiff, and case reported to the appellate division. From an order dismissing the report, defendant appeals. Order dismissing the report affirmed.
W. B. Leach, Jr., of Brookline, for appellant.
A. A. Tucker, of Boston, for appellee.
This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries caused by a piece of tin embedded in a loaf of bread, alleged to have been manufactured by the defendant. In the municipal court the judge found for the plaintiff and reported the case to the appellate division, which dismissed the report; and the defendant appealed. The only issue presented is whether the evidence, offered to show that the defendant was the manufacturer of the loaf of bread, was admissible, and whether the court was justified in finding upon the evidence that the food containing the foreign substance which injured the plaintiff was manufactured by the defendant.
The testimony to which reference has been made tended to prove that the loaf came in a sealed wrapper upon which appeared the words: ‘Massachusetts Baking Company,’ ‘White Rose Bakery New England Office, Boston,’ also a statement of the weight as one pound, four ounces, and the words ‘Trade Mark Registered U. S. Pat. Off.’ This wrapper had been destroyed, but a wrapper was introduced in evidence which the witness stated to be similar to it in all respects except that instead of the name ‘Massachusetts Baking Company’ which was on the plaintiff's loaf there appeared on the wrapper in evidence the present trade name of the defendant. It was agreed by counsel at the trial that the name appearing upon the plaintiff's loaf was the trade name of the defendant at the time the loaf was purchased by the plaintiff.
A manufacturer is liable ‘to third persons for negligence in the preparation of food for human consumption, whether the unfitness of the food be due to deleterious ingredients, or to the presence of a foreign substance.’ Tonsman v. Greenglass, 248 Mass. 275, 277, 142 N. E. 756, 757. A jury may infer from the fact that a piece of metal is embedded in the loaf that it got in during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn v. Swift & Co.
...(1924) 250 Mass. 198, 145 N.E. 281; Sullivan v. Manhattan Market Co. (1925) 251 Mass. 395, 146 N.E. 673; Doyle v. Continental Baking Co. (1928) 262 Mass. 516, 160 N.E. 325; Hertzler v. Manshum (1924) 228 Mich. 416, 200 N.W. 155; Jackson Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Chapman (1914) 106 Miss. 864......
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...from the defendant, a verdict in her favor on the ground of negligence would have been supported by the evidence. Doyle v. Continental Baking Co., 262 Mass. 516, 160 N.E. 325;Navien v. Cohen, 268 Mass. 427, 167 N.E. 666;Roscigno v. Colonial Beacon Oil Co., 294 Mass. 234, 200 N.E. 883;Vozzel......
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...from the defendant, a verdict in her favor on the ground of negligence would have been supported by the evidence. Doyle, v. Continental Baking Co. 262 Mass. 516 Navien v. Cohen, 268 Mass. 427. Roscigno v. Colonial Beacon Oil Co. 294 Mass. 234 . Vozella v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 296 Mass. ......
-
Arena v. John P. Squire Co.
...v. Greenglass, 248 Mass. 275, 142 N.E. 756;Richenbacher v. California Packing Corp., 250 Mass. 198, 145 N.E. 281;Doyle v. Continental Baking Co., 262 Mass. 516, 160 N.E. 325;O'Brien v. Louis K. Liggett Co., 282 Mass. 438, 185 N.E. 28;McSpedon v. Kunz, 271 N.Y. 131, 2 N.E.2d 513, 105 A.L.R. ......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 902 Evidence that Is Self-Authenticating
...in the cases. Curtiss Candy Co. v. Johnson, 163 Miss. 426, 141 So. 762 (1932), Baby Ruth candy bar; Doyle v. Continental Baking Co., 262 Mass. 516, 160 N.E. 325 (1928), loaf of bread; Weiner v. Mager & Throne, Inc., 167 Misc. 338, 3 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1938), same. And see W.Va.Code 1966, §47-3-5......