From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mesick v. Polk

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 18, 1946
70 N.E.2d 169 (N.Y. 1946)

Opinion

Argued September 30, 1946

Decided October 18, 1946

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, NOVA, J.

J. Leonard Stoll and Monroe J. Winsten for appellants.

William A. Michel for respondents.


Order reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts, and question certified answered in the negative, on the ground that there was no duty upon a mere vendor to warn the ultimate purchaser against exposure of the capsule to heat. No opinion.

Concur: DESMOND, THACHER, DYE and FULD, JJ. Dissenting: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS and CONWAY, JJ.


Summaries of

Mesick v. Polk

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 18, 1946
70 N.E.2d 169 (N.Y. 1946)
Case details for

Mesick v. Polk

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD A. MESICK, JR., an Infant, by EDWARD A. MESICK, His Guardian ad…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 18, 1946

Citations

70 N.E.2d 169 (N.Y. 1946)
70 N.E.2d 169

Citing Cases

Sparling v. Podzielinski

Recognizing, as they do, the duty of a manufacturer to subject his product to reasonable tests and inspection…

Solazzo v. Occhino

The argument is made that, the named defendants not being the manufacturer of the product which was sold to…