Thomas and Wife V Winchester, Court of Appeals of New York, 1852 6 N.Y.397,57 Am.Dec.455.

Case: Thomas and Wife v Winchester, Court of Appeals of New York, 1852 6 N.Y.397,57 Am.DEC.455.

Facts: Mrs. Thomas physician prescribed her a dose of dandelion. Her husband purchased what was believed to be the medicine prescribed, at the store of Dr. Food, a physician and druggist. A small quantity of medicine thus purchased was administered to Mrs. Thomas on whom is produced very alarming effects. She recovered however, although for a short time her life was thought to be in great danger. The medicine administered was belladonna and not dandelion.

Procedural History: The defendants moved for a nonsuit on the following grounds: that the action could not be sustained, as the defendant was the remote vendor of the article in question: and there was no connection, transaction or privity between him and the plaintiffs, or either of them. The judge denied the motion for the nonsuit. He sent the case to the jury with instructions that, if the jury found that the defendant was negligent and neither Aspinwall nor Foord was negligent, then the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.

Issue: Whether the defendant, being a remote vendor of the medicine, and there being no privity or connection between him and the plaintiffs, the action can be maintained.

Holding: That the retail seller of a defectively manufactured lamp was not liable to the wife of the purchaser when the retailer had no knowledge of the defect, the distinction is recognized between an act of negligence imminently dangerous to the lives of others, and one that is no so.

Reasoning: The court of Appeals of New York relied on the Winterbottom v Wright, 10 Mees.&Welsb.109. a contracted with the postmaster general to provide a coach to convey the mail bags along a certain line of road, and B and others also contracted to horse the coach along the same line. B and his co-contractors hired C, who was the plaintiff, to drive the coach. The coach in consequence of some latent defect broke down; the plaintiff was thrown from his seat and lamed. But the case in hand stands on different ground. The defendant was a dealer in poisonous drugs. Gilbert was his agent preparing them for the market. The death or great bodily harm of some person was the natural and almost inevitable consequence of the sale of belladonna by means of the false label.

Disposition: The Court of Appeals