Ringstad v. I. Magnin & Co.

The question presented is: Does the plaintiffs’ amended complaint state a cause of action on the theory of either negligence or breach of warranty of fitness?

The facts, unmixed with conclusions of law, as garnered from the allegations of the amended complaint, are that Emery T. Ringstad purchased from I. Magnin & Co. a summer cocktail robe for his wife, Helen Louise Ringstad. Two days later, while she was preparing food in the kitchen, the robe came into “casual contact” with a burner of an electric stove “and it instantaneously burst into a sheet of flame which spread with explosive…