Legal Opinion

Smolen v. Grandview Dairy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 19, 1949Published

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum by the Court. In our opinion no negligence upon the part of this defendant has been proved. “ A milk bottle is a simple appliance in ordinary use not inherently dangerous ”, and not involving “ the potency of danger ”. (Cullem v. Renken Dairy Co., 247 App. Div. 742; Poplar v. Bourjois, Inc., 272 App. Div. 74, affd. 298 N. Y. 62; Boyd v. American Can Co., 249 App. Div. 644, affd. 274 N. Y. 526; Simons v. Sun Ray Water Co., 162 N. Y. S. 968; Licari v. Markotos, 110 Misc. 334; Honea v. City Dairy, Inc., 22 Cal. 2d 614.) No proof was adduced that the bottle was cracked while in the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Poplar v. Bourjois, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1948
  2. Smith v. Peerless Glass Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
  3. Honea v. City Dairy, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Bruckel v. J. Milhau's SonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  5. Coralnick v. Abbotts Dairies, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

4 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