Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hentschel v. Baby Bathinette Corp. (White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., Third Party Defendant)

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided July 27, 1954No. 23021_1Published

1DissentFrank, Circuit Judge

The question here is this: Ought the judge have allowed the jury to determine whether or not defendants should reasonably have foreseen that the thin sheets of magnesium, covering the legs of the bathinette, might be ignited, should a fire break out in the dwelling of a purchaser of the bathinette ? My colleagues concede that such a fire might well lead such magnesium sheets to ignite and explode, and that the jury could rationally have found that just that did occur here, with serious damage to plaintiffs which would not have resulted from an ordinary fire, absent the magnesium sheets. But…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Loucks v. . Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
  4. Laidlaw v. . SageNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  5. Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API