Morrissey v. Conservative Gas Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1956 |
| Citation | 135 N.E.2d 45,152 N.Y.S.2d 289,1 N.Y.2d 741 |
| Parties | , 135 N.E.2d 45 Anne R. MORRISSEY, as Administratrix etc., Appellant, v. CONSERVATIVE GAS CORPORATION et al., Defendants, and Esso Standard Oil Company, Respondent. Anne R. MORRISSEY, Appellant, v. CONSERVATIVE GAS CORPORATION et al., Defendants, and Esso Standard Oil Co., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 285 App.Div. 825, 136 N.Y.S.2d 844.
Widow brought actions individually and as administratrix of the goods, chattels and credits of her deceased husband against manufacturer of gas and distributors of gas to recover for property damage and for death of husband as result of an explosion, on ground that manufacturer of gas was negligent in failing to odorize the gas, so that escaping gas could be detected, and on ground that distributors were negligent in maintaining tanks and other apparatus.
The Supreme Court, Ritchie, J., entered judgments dismissing the complaints at the end of the widow's case, and the widow appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments and held that where there was no proof that manufacturer had sold gas to distributors, widow could not maintain the actions against the manufacturer. Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., dissented.
The widow appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that there was competent evidence that the gas, which caused the explosion, was manufactured by manufacturer, and that, in any event, such fact was conceded and that any additional proof with respect to such fact was waived by manufacturer, and that because the gas, by reason of its very nature, was an inherently dangerous substance, the manufacturer was under a duty to give reasonable warning, and that there was an issue of fact that should have been left to the jury as to whether manufacturer adequately odorized the gas.
Abraham Epstein, New York City (Edward Alan Shure, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Satterlee, Warfield & Stephens, New York City (James F. Dwyer, New York City, and Joseph R. Crowley, New Rochelle, of counsel), for defendant-respondent Esso Standard Oil Co.
In each action: Judgment affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
210 E. 86th St. Corp. v. Combustion Engineering
... ... products liability action, identification of the exact defendant whose product injured the plaintiff is, of course, generally required."); Morrissey v. Conservative Gas Corp., 285 A.D. 825, 136 N.Y.S.2d 844 (2d Dep't 1955), aff'd sub nom.; People v. DiStefano, 1 N.Y.2d 739, 152 N.Y.S.2d 288, ... ...
-
Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly and Co.
...of course, generally required (see, e.g., Morrissey v. Conservative Gas Corp., 285 App.Div. 825, 136 N.Y.S.2d 844, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 741, 152 N.Y.S.2d 289, 135 N.E.2d 45; Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 103, at 713 [5th ed]. In DES cases in which such identification is possible, actions may procee......
-
Burt v. Fumigation Service and Supply, Inc.
...J., dissenting on other grounds) (lack of odorant in propane gas; relying on Restatement (First) of Torts), aff'd, 1 N.Y.2d 741, 152 N.Y.S.2d 289, 135 N.E.2d 45 (1956). Hence there is a defective design claim based on the failure to include feasible warnings, and a defective design claim th......
-
Tigue v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., AMFRE-G
...of proof on product identification (Morrissey v. Conservative Gas Corp., 285 A.D. 825, 136 N.Y.S.2d 844 [1955], aff'd 1 N.Y.2d 741, 152 N.Y.S.2d 289, 135 N.E.2d 45 [1956] ). However, several non-identification or collective liability theories have been proposed and in some cases adopted, to......