Legal Opinion
Smith v. Peerless Glass Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 1, 1932PublishedCited by 60 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrouch, J.
The plaintiffs in the actions are father and daughter. - It will be convenient to discuss only the daughter’s action. The plaintiff, a waitress or clerk at her father’s wayside soda and cigar stand, lost the sight of one eye by the explosion of a soda water bottle. The bottle was made by the defendant Peerless Glass Co., Inc., and sold by it to the defendant Minck Bros. & Co., Inc. The latter filled it with soda water and put it on the market.
If the filled bottle may be regarded as an assembled product of which the bottle itself was a component part, the approach to the applicable rule of law…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Rosebrock v. General Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- John Wanamaker, New York, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Sider v. . General Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Foley v. the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Carter v. Yardley & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Inman v. Binghamton Housing AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Littlehale v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.