Martin v. Bengue, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 April 1957
• Docket Number: No. A--114,A--114
• Citation: 44 N.J.Super. 429,130 A.2d 863
• Parties: Frank MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENGUE, Inc., a corporation, and Thos. Leeming & Co., Inc., a corporation, Defendants-Respondents. . Appellate Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 429

44 N.J.Super. 429

130 A.2d 863

Frank MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENGUE, Inc., a corporation, and Thos. Leeming & Co., Inc.,

a corporation, Defendants-Respondents.

No. A--114.

Superior Court of New Jersey.

Appellate Division.

Argued March 25, 1957.

Decided April 11, 1957.

S. Arthur Stern, Newark, for plaintiff-appellant (Stern & Fine, Newark, attorneys; Donald S. Kates, Hackensack, on the brief).

James P. Beggans, Jersey City, for defendant Bengue, Inc. (Carpenter, Bennett, Beggans & Morrissey, Jersey City, attorneys; Milton A. Dauber, Jersey City, on the brief).

Joseph Keane, Jersey City, for defendant Thos. Leeming & Co., Inc. (Milton, McNulty & Augelli, Jersey City, attorneys; John B. O'Neill, Jersey City, on the brief).

Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CLAPP, S.J.A.D.

This action is brought by plaintiff against defendants Bengue, Inc. and Thos. Leeming & Co., Inc., for injuries sustained by him. He claims these injuries were the result of a breach of defendants' common law and statutory duties to warn users of an ointment, called 'Ben-Gay,' as to the inflammability of the vapors emitted by it. The ointment is manufactured by Bengue from a secret formula, and distributed by Leeming. Judge Artaserse for the Superior Court, Law Division, entered a judgment of involuntary dismissal at the close of plaintiff's case. He found, first, that there was no breach of duty on the part of the defendants; second, that even if there was such a breach, there was no causation between it and plaintiff's injuries and, third, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Plaintiff brings this appeal.

For several days plaintiff had been home ill, suffering from a heavy cold. Each day his wife had rubbed on his chest, shoulders and neck a 'medium' amount of Ben-Gay--substantially in the manner in which it was intended to be used. Just before the accident, and after such an application of the ointment, plaintiff had seated himself in a chair, conversing with his wife. At the time, he was wearing nothing but cotton pajamas which had become somewhat 'greasy' from the application of the Ben-Gay to his body during these days. He attempted to light a cigarette, and about five or six seconds after striking the match, suddenly realized that he held in his hand only the stub of the match. Looking down, he saw that the lower part of his pajama coat was on fire, burning with an ordinary yellowish flame about two or three inches in diameter. The fire was in his lap, some inches from where the Ben-Gay had been applied. He tried to pat it out; not succeeding in that, he jumped up continuing still with his patting motion, but the flame, somewhat fanned by his movements, spread very rapidly across the parts of his body covered with the ointment, burning him severely.

Were the defendants under a common law duty to warn users of Ben-Gay as to the inflammability of its vapors? On this point plaintiff's case depends in large measure upon the testimony of his experts. According to their testimony, Ben-Gay contains about 58% Non-volatile matter, 8% Water and the balance volatiles, namely, methyl salicylate 18% And menthol 17%. While cross-examining one of the experts, Leeming's counsel, Mr. Keane, put some Ben-Gay on his (Mr. Keane's) hand and had the expert apply a match to it, but neither the Ben-Gay, nor the vapors from it, caught fire. It is to be observed in this connection, as the expert testified, that methyl salicylate and menthol 'vaporize at * * * room temperature.' This expert said that the experiment proved that if the vapors of Ben-Gay are mixed with the air of the entire room, they will not burn. Likewise, he said, dangerous vapors from gasoline would not burn if it were poured on the floor of the courtroom. However, we are not given any idea at all as to what proportion of methyl salicylate vapor, or menthol vapor, to air will produce a combustible mixture.

On the other hand this expert testified to an experiment he had conducted out of the courtroom, indicating that if an ample quantity of Ben-Gay were applied to a surface and the surface was thereupon covered with plaintiff's pajamas, and if the pajamas were set on fire and the fire somewhat fanned (as when plaintiff moved about and patted himself), then any vapors from the Ben-Gay would not only ignite but cause the fire to spread extremely rapidly. The proofs show that methyl salicylate has a flash point (I.e. produces a puff of flame, not a fire) at 214 F (closed cup--2 above the boiling point of water)--225 F (open cup); and its vapors burn continuously at about 10 above the flash point. We have no such information as to menthol. There was, however, testimony that the temperature of a burning match and also of cotton is 1200 to 1800 or 2000 , presumably Fahrenheit. Incidentally, the treasurer of Bengue, who is a chemist, stated in a deposition, without contradiction, that until this action was started his company's attention had never been called to the fact that Ben-Gay vapors are flammable.

It can reasonably be inferred from the foregoing facts that Ben-Gay vapors will burn at 224 --235 F--but only when the oxygen in the air is limited in quantity, as where it is confined by some article, such as the pajama coat, so as to form with the vapors a...