Zirpola v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 11.,11. |
| Parties | ZIRPOLA v. ADAM HAT STORES, Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The mere fact that only a small proportion of those who use a certain article would suffer injuries by reason of such use does not absolve the vendor from liability under the implied warranty created by the statute; otherwise, in every action to recover damages for the breach of an implied warranty, it would be necessary to show that the article sold, whether it be food or wearing apparel, would be injurious to every user.
2. It is well known that many people are immune from certain poisons as well as contagious and infectious diseases, yet it could not be contended by reason thereof that a vendor selling an article infected with disease germs or containing a poisonous substance injurious to the user of the article would not be liable under an implied warranty, unless it could be proved that injury would be the inevitable result of the use of such article.
3. An intervening cause is an act of an independent agency which destroys the causal connection between defendant's negligent act and the injury; the independent act being the immediate cause.
4. The proximate cause is that cause which naturally and probably led to and which might have been expected to produce the result; there must be an unbroken causal connection; it is the efficient cause; the one that necessarily sets the other causes in operation.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Frank Zirpola against the Adam Hat Stores, Inc., for the breach of an implied warranty. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Fred Saperstein, of Union City, for appellant.
Theodore Rabinowitz, of Jersey City, for respondent.
This action was instituted in the Supreme Court for the breach of an implied warranty arising out of the provision of section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act, Pamph.L1907, p. 316, Rev.Stat. 46:30-21, subdivision (1) of which provides: "Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose."
The plaintiff-respondent presented proof at the trial to establish that some time in March, 1936 he purchased a hat from the defendant at a store conducted by it in Jersey City, and that at the time of delivery there was placed in the hat defendant's printed guarantee reading in part: "Adam Certificate of Guarantee * * * carefully examined before leaving our factories to maintain the Adam standard of quality * * * We guarantee this hat to give proper wear * * *." Plaintiff wore the hat occasionally for a few weeks and then had it cleaned. He continued to wear it for a short time thereafter, when he noticed that his hair, which was naturally black, had turned a reddish-orange color on each side of his head, and that he had a skin eruption on his forehead and the frontal region of the scalp, which condition was caused by reason of the hat being impregnated by a dye known as paraphenylenediamine, an aniline derivative of a poisonous nature. The plaintiff alleged that his nervous system was affected by said poisonous dye, and that he had been subjected to humiliation and embarrassment by reason of the skin eruption and discoloration of his hair.
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $200, and the defendant now seeks to reverse the judgment which was entered in accordance with the verdict.
The defendant did not contend at the trial or argue here that there was no implied warranty by the defendant that the hat was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was to be used.
The first point upon which a reversal is sought, and which was advanced by the defendant at the trial on motions for a non-suit and directed verdict, is that the implied warranty, in sales of this character, as defined by the statute, does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories
...that the product is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was acquired. See N.J.S.A. 12A:2-315. In Zirpola v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 122 N.J.L. 21, 4 A.2d 73 (E. & A.1939), the Court held that under the Uniform Sale of Goods Law, R.S. 46:30-21(1), which provided for an implied warrant......
-
Thomas v. Gillette Co.
...Inc., 102 N.J.Super. 279, 246 A.2d 11 (1968); Reynolds v. Sun Ray Drug Co., 135 N.J.Law 475, 52 A.2d 666 (1947); Zirpola v. Adam Hat Stores, 122 N.J.Law 21, 4 A.2d 73 (1939); Esborg v. Bailey Drug Co., 61 Wash.2d 347, 378 P.2d 298 In applying its doctrine of 'strict liability', Louisiana ev......
-
Frank R. Jelleff, Inc. v. Braden
...those employed in the manufacture." Dushane v. Benedict, 1887, 120 U.S. 630, 646, 7 S.Ct. 696, 702, 30 L.Ed. 810. 13 1939, 122 N.J.L. 21, 4 A.2d 73, 75. 14 Reynolds v. Sun Ray Drug Co., 1947, 135 N.J.L. 475, 52 A.2d 666; and see Flynn v. Bedell Co., 1922, 242 Mass. 450, 136 N.E. 252, 27 A.L......
-
Evinger v. Thompson
...exposure. On the matter of allergy see Bianchi v. Denholm & McKay Co., 302 Mass. 469, 19 N.E.2d 697, 121 A.L.R. 460; Zirpola v. Adam Hat Stores, 122 N.J.L. 21, 4 A.2d 73. Of course, defendant had evidence to the contrary but the trouble with this alternative in instruction A was that it aut......