Kusick v. Thorndike

Decision Date20 June 1916
Citation224 Mass. 413
PartiesHAROLD R. KUSICK v. THORNDIKE AND HIX, INCORPORATED.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

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 &amp 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 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 the effect that it would be impossible for lime in cans, such as was put up by the defendant, to explode. While this evidence might have been disbelieved, still there was an entire absence of affirmative proof that the lime was dangerous in any degree. The distinction between the sale, without notice of its qualities, of an article commonly recognized as inherently dangerous to life or property, and the sale of ordinary merchandise and property, is well recognized. Davidson v. Nichols, 11 Allen, 514....

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1929
    ...with 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, 112 N. E. 1025. It is a well-recognized exception to this general rule that where an article is recognized as inherently dangerous......
  • Carter v. Yardley & Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1946
    ...Mills, 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......
  • Carter v. Yardley & Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1946
    ... ... Australian Knitting Mills, ... 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 ... ...
  • Defore v. Bourjois, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1958
    ...dangerous in the bottle or its contents. Lebourdais v. Vitrified Wheel Co., 194 Mass. 341, 80 N.E. 482; Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 224 Mass. 413, 112 N.E. 1025. The fact, discovered after the accident, that one side of the carboy was thicker than the other, must be considered in conne......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT