Tonsman v. Greenglass

• Decision Date: 01 March 1924
• Parties: TONSMAN v. GREENGLASS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

248 Mass. 275

142 N.E. 756

TONSMAN

v.GREENGLASS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 1, 1924.

Exceptions from Superio Court; Suffolk County; Louis S. Cox, Judge.

Action of tort by Sadie Tonsman against Barnet Greenglass and others for personal injuries. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendants bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

The defendants presented the following requests for rulings and instructions:

‘(2) There is no evidence that the device used by the defendants in the preparation of the bread bought by the plaintiff was not reasonably adapted to the safe, careful, and proper preparation of the same.

‘(3) There is no evidence that the method of manufacture used by the defendants in the preparation of the bread used by the plaintiff was not reasonably adapted to the safe, careful, and proper preparation of the same.’

‘(6) The fact, if it be a fact, that some foreign substance was found in the bread manufactured by the defendants, without any affirmative evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, is of itself not enough to warrant a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant.’

‘(8) The fact, if it be a fact, that the bread manufactured by the defendants contained a deleterious foreign substance, is not of itself evidence of negligence sufficient to warrant a finding for the plaintiff.’

The court instructed the jury as follows:

‘You may use your own experience, and such inferences as are reasonable, whether the facts in this case afford you just ground, from ordinary experience, that this piece of metal would not have got in except through the negligence, or some negligence, on the part of the defendant. It is all a question of fact for you to determine.’J. T. Connolly, of Boston, for plaintiff.

C. Gerstein, of Boston, for defendants.

DE COURCY, J.

It is a long-established general rule that the manufacturer of a defective article is not liable to an ultimate consumer, who has purchased from a middleman, for injuries resulting from negligence in its manufacture; where there is neither fraud nor privity of contract, and the defective article is not inherently dangerous. Tompkins v. Quaker Oats Co., 239 Mass. 147, 131 N. E. 456, and cases cited; Windram Manufacturing Co. v. Boston Blacking Co., 239 Mass. 123, 131 N. E. 454,17 A. L. R. 674, note, and cases collected.

The courts generally, although on various grounds, recognized as an exception to this rule the liability of the manufacturer to third persons for negligence in the preparation of food for human consumption; whether the unfitness of the food be due to deleterious ingredients, or to the presence of a foreign substance. Wilson v. Ferguson Co., 214 Mass. 265, 101 N. E. 381;Newhall v. Ward Baking Co., 240 Mass. 434, 436, 134 N. E. 625;Tomlinson v. Armour & Co., 75 N. J. Law, 748, 70 Atl. 314,19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 923;Boyd v. Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 132 Tenn. 23, 177 S. W. 80;Ketterer v. Armour & Co. (D. C.) 200 Fed. 322;Freeman v. Schultz Bread Co., 100 Misc. Rep. 528,163 N. Y. Supp. 396;Birmingham Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 678, 89 South. 64,17 A. L. R. 667;Drury v. Armour & Co., 140 Ark. 371, 216 S. W. 40;Watson v. Augusta Brewing Co., 124 Ga. 121, 52 S. E. 152,1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178, 110 Am. St. Rep. 157;Salmon v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, 219 Ill. 421, 76 N. E. 573;Davis v. Van Camp Packing Co., 189 Iowa, 775, 176 N. W. 382, 17 A. L. R. 649;Parks v. C. C. Yost Pie Co., 93 Kan. 334, 144 Pac. 202, L. R. A. 1915C, 179;Goldman & Freiman Bottling Co. v. Sindell, 140 Md. 488, 117 Atl. 866;Craft v. Parker, Webb & Co., 96 Mich. 245, 55 N. W. 812,21 L. R. A. 139;Jackson Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Chapman, 106 Miss. 864, 64 South. 791;Ward v. Morehead City Sea Food Co., 171 N. C. 33, 87 S. E. 958;Crigger v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 132 Tenn. 545, 179 S. W. 155;Mazetti v. Armour & Co., 75 Wash. 622, 135 Pac. 633,48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 213, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 140. See, also, Bishop v. Weber, 139 Mass. 411, 1 N. E. 154,52 Am. Rep. 715; 17 A. L. R. 689, note.

There was testimony on which...