McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
Writing for the CourtIreland & Cohen, of New York City (William C. Fiest, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant
Citation29 F. Supp. 822
Decision Date15 July 1939
PartiesMcGRATH v. HELENA RUBINSTEIN, Inc.

29 F. Supp. 822

McGRATH
v.
HELENA RUBINSTEIN, Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

July 15, 1939.


29 F. Supp. 823

Irving T. Bergman, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Ireland & Cohen, of New York City (William C. Fiest, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

JOHN W. CLANCY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, who was and is a resident of Pennsylvania, brings this action against the defendant, a New York corporation, alleging that on or about the 1st day of May, 1936, she purchased a cosmetic manufactured and distributed by the defendant corporation; that the purchase was made in a drugstore in Pennsylvania from a representative of the defendant corporation; that after using this cosmetic plaintiff suffered injuries to her face and skin.

The one cause of action is based upon allegations of implied warranty and guaranty, express warranty and false representation of defendant's representative and negligence. Defendant has made no motion addressed to the form of the complaint.

Defendant, for a first, affirmative defense, alleges the statute of limitations of Pennsylvania and, for a second defense, res adjudicata. Plaintiff moves to strike out the first and second defenses and defendant makes a cross motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment.

We shall consider the complaint as one alleging two separate and distinct causes of action; one for negligence and one for breach of warranty, although they have not been separately stated. Both causes of action arose in the State of Pennsylvania where the cosmetic was used and purchased in 1936. Restatement Conflict of Laws, §§ 332 and 377. The Pennsylvania statute of limitations in actions for personal injuries arising out of negligence is two years. Defendant alleges that an action for breach of warranty arises out of the same negligence and is governed by the same statute of limitations. With this we are not in accord as the actions are based upon entirely different theories. The duty breached by negligence is relative; that of a warrantor is absolute and negligence as such is then irrelevant. Applying the Pennsylvania statute to the tort action we have a resident of Pennsylvania suing a resident of New York on an action which accrued more than two years earlier in Pennsylvania. Defendant was at no time a resident of Pennsylvania; plaintiff at no time a resident of New York. It is our understanding of the law of Pennsylvania that the non-residence of a defendant who was not a resident...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Atkins v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., No. 37958
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • August 5, 1960
    ...Cir., 110 F.2d 970, 972, 133 A.L.R. 255; Mannsz v. Macwhyte Co., 3 Cir., 155 F.2d 445; McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 29 F.Supp. 822, 823; Reed & Barton Corp. v. Maas, 1 Cir., 73 F.2d 359, 7 Hellriegel v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.N.D.Ill., 157 F.Supp. 718, 720. 8 ......
  • Scott by Ricciardi v. First State Ins. Co., No. 88-1149
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • June 8, 1989
    ...aff'd, 229 F.2d 554 (3d Cir.1956); Karagiannis v. Shaffer, 96 F.Supp. 211 (W.D.Pa.1951); McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc., 29 F.Supp. 822 (S.D.N.Y.1939); Martin v. Julius Dierck Equip. Co., 43 N.Y.2d 583, 403 N.Y.S.2d 185, 374 N.E.2d 97 (1978); Cellura v. Cellura, 24 A.D.2d 59, 263 N.Y.S.......
  • Frombach v. Gilbert Associates, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • November 10, 1967
    ...F.2d 111; Wilt v. Smack, 147 F.Supp. 700; Hilliard v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 73 F.2d 473; McGrath v. Helena Rubenstein, Inc., D.C., 29 F.Supp. 822; Momand v. Universal Film Exchanges, 1 Cir., 172 F.2d 37; Farrell v. Employer's Liability Assur. Corp., 57 R.I. 389, 190 A. 466, 474. There ......
  • ROBINS v. FINESTONE
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • June 2, 1955
    ...v. Wolper, 181 App. Div. 485, 228 N.Y. 582; Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp., 305 N.Y. 140; McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 822.) Robert C. Heidell for respondent. The complaint alleges a cause of action the gravamen of which is a tort, malpractice. The gravamen of this a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Atkins v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., No. 37958
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • August 5, 1960
    ...Cir., 110 F.2d 970, 972, 133 A.L.R. 255; Mannsz v. Macwhyte Co., 3 Cir., 155 F.2d 445; McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 29 F.Supp. 822, 823; Reed & Barton Corp. v. Maas, 1 Cir., 73 F.2d 359, 7 Hellriegel v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.N.D.Ill., 157 F.Supp. 718, 720. 8 ......
  • Scott by Ricciardi v. First State Ins. Co., No. 88-1149
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • June 8, 1989
    ...aff'd, 229 F.2d 554 (3d Cir.1956); Karagiannis v. Shaffer, 96 F.Supp. 211 (W.D.Pa.1951); McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc., 29 F.Supp. 822 (S.D.N.Y.1939); Martin v. Julius Dierck Equip. Co., 43 N.Y.2d 583, 403 N.Y.S.2d 185, 374 N.E.2d 97 (1978); Cellura v. Cellura, 24 A.D.2d 59, 263 N.Y.S.......
  • Frombach v. Gilbert Associates, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • November 10, 1967
    ...F.2d 111; Wilt v. Smack, 147 F.Supp. 700; Hilliard v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 73 F.2d 473; McGrath v. Helena Rubenstein, Inc., D.C., 29 F.Supp. 822; Momand v. Universal Film Exchanges, 1 Cir., 172 F.2d 37; Farrell v. Employer's Liability Assur. Corp., 57 R.I. 389, 190 A. 466, 474. There ......
  • ROBINS v. FINESTONE
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • June 2, 1955
    ...v. Wolper, 181 App. Div. 485, 228 N.Y. 582; Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp., 305 N.Y. 140; McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 822.) Robert C. Heidell for respondent. The complaint alleges a cause of action the gravamen of which is a tort, malpractice. The gravamen of this a......
  • 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