Bagre v. Daggett Chocolate Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The finding is attacked by the appeal but cannot be corrected in any respect materially affecting the issues which determine it. In so far as the defendant’s liability is concerned these material facts, summarized in part, appear from the finding. In a bingo game which the plaintiff had paid a fee to enter, he won a box of chocolates manufactured by the defendant. Several days later, on January 18, 1938, the plaintiff opened the box, took out a chocolate caramel and started to chew it. Within a second or two he bit into a hard metallic substance which broke off one of his upper teeth. Nothing…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Broschart v. TuttleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
- Rozumailski v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Motiejaitis v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Jump v. Ensign-Bickford Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Ryan v. George L. Lilley Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Manning v. Bishop of MarquetteMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
- Levine v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
- Witort v. United States Rubber Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1966
- Greenwald v. Van HandelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2014
- Levine v. Wilson & Co.Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1950
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.