Kusick v. Thorndike
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Citation | 224 Mass. 413 |
| Parties | HAROLD R. KUSICK v. THORNDIKE AND HIX, INCORPORATED. |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1916 |
224 Mass. 413
HAROLD R. KUSICK
v.
THORNDIKE AND HIX, INCORPORATED.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.
June 20, 1916
March 15, 1916.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., LORING, BRALEY, DE COURCY, & CROSBY, JJ.
Negligence, Dangerous substance, Res ipsa loquitur. Lime.
A canner who buys lime from a manufacturer of that substance, packs it in cans and sells the cans of lime to retail dealers, is not liable for an injury caused by the explosion of one of the cans of lime, when it was being opened by a customer who had purchased it from a retail dealer, in the absence of evidence that lime is a dangerous substance or that the canner of the lime was negligent as to the manner of packing or sealing it in the can, and also in the absence of evidence that, if there was anything defective or dangerous in the composition of the lime, the canner had any reason to know of it.
The fact that a person was injured by the explosion of a can of lime when it was being opened is not in itself evidence that the canner who packed the lime in the can and put it on the market did so negligently.
W. H. Smart & T. F. Burns, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief. C. A. Parker, for the defendant.
CROSBY, J. This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff by reason of the explosion of a can of lime. There was evidence that the plaintiff was employed in a bowling alley in which one Hansis was employed as manager; that Hansis sent the plaintiff to the Central Square Hardware Company in Cambridge to buy a can of lime to be used in whitewashing some ceilings; that, after he had returned and Hansis was opening the can with a pocket knife, the lime exploded causing the injuries for which this action is brought.
There was also evidence from which it could have been found that the lime was manufactured by the Rockland Lime Company [224 Mass. 414] and was sold by that company to the defendant, who packed it in a can and afterwards sold it to the Central Square Hardware Company.
In an action of this kind, it is well settled that it is necessary to aver and prove negligence in the defendant. Crocker v. Baltimore Dairy Lunch Co. 214 Mass. 177 . No negligence of the defendant in this case is shown unless the fact of the explosion be evidence of such negligence. No evidence was offered by the plaintiff to show that lime is an inherently dangerous article. On the other hand, the defendant offered evidence to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...Ltd., [1936] A.C. 85, 101; Clark v. Army & Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd., [1903] 1 K.B. 155. Compare Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 224 Mass. 413, 112 N.E. 1025;Ruffin v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 311 Mass. 514, 42 N.E.2d 259;McCabe v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 314 Mass. 493, 50 N.E.2d......
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...Ltd. [1936] A. C. 85, 101. Clark v. Army & Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd. [1903] 1 K. B. 155. Compare Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc. 224 Mass. 413; Ruffin v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 311 Mass. 514; McCabe v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co. 314 Mass. 493 , in which no negligence was shown. [319 ......
-
Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.
...negligence unless it be shown that he knew or ought to have known of its unsafe and harmful qualities. Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc. 224 Mass. 413 , 414. It is a well recognized exception to this general rule that where an article is recognized as inherently dangerous to life, limb or pro......
-
Rafferty v. Hull Brewing Co.
...or other middleman, this is not enough to support an inference of negligence against such party. See Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 224 Mass. 413, 112 N.E. [350 Mass. 363] The case against Hull is governed by the principles set forth in Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., 339 Ma......
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...Ltd., [1936] A.C. 85, 101; Clark v. Army & Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd., [1903] 1 K.B. 155. Compare Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 224 Mass. 413, 112 N.E. 1025;Ruffin v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 311 Mass. 514, 42 N.E.2d 259;McCabe v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 314 Mass. 493, 50 N.E.2d......
-
Carter v. Yardley & Co.
...Ltd. [1936] A. C. 85, 101. Clark v. Army & Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd. [1903] 1 K. B. 155. Compare Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc. 224 Mass. 413; Ruffin v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 311 Mass. 514; McCabe v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co. 314 Mass. 493 , in which no negligence was shown. [319 ......
-
Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.
...negligence unless it be shown that he knew or ought to have known of its unsafe and harmful qualities. Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc. 224 Mass. 413 , 414. It is a well recognized exception to this general rule that where an article is recognized as inherently dangerous to life, limb or pro......
-
Rafferty v. Hull Brewing Co.
...or other middleman, this is not enough to support an inference of negligence against such party. See Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 224 Mass. 413, 112 N.E. [350 Mass. 363] The case against Hull is governed by the principles set forth in Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., 339 Ma......