| dbo:abstract
|
- Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., 235 N.Y. 468, 139 N.E. 576 (1922), was a products liability case before the New York Court of Appeals. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant based on implied warranty when she does not have contractual privity with him; thus, a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant who sold her employer food unfit for consumption, because the defendant's implied warranty extended only to the employer. Chysky is part of a progression of cases that influenced the products liability synthesis that emerged early in the century. The Chysky case reflects a refinement of Judge Cardozo's argument in MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. that a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser. In Chysky, Cardozo joined Judge McLaughlin's opinion, which relied on Cardozo's statement in MacPherson that the basis of liability in that case was in tort, not contract. "If the exceptions expressed in MacPherson had been a smokescreen for the basic principle that a producer of a defective product would be liable to anyone who might be expected to use it, Cardozo would have applied the MacPherson principles to permit the waitress to recover regardless of her choice not to sue in tort. Yet Cardozo joined the majority that ruled against the waitress, not Judge Hogan's silent dissent." (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 6187 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:citations
| |
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:fullName
|
- Bertha Chysky, Respondent, v. Drake Brothers Company, Inc., Appellant (en)
|
| dbp:italicTitle
| |
| dbp:keywords
| |
| dbp:name
|
- Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co. (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., 235 N.Y. 468, 139 N.E. 576 (1922), was a products liability case before the New York Court of Appeals. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant based on implied warranty when she does not have contractual privity with him; thus, a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant who sold her employer food unfit for consumption, because the defendant's implied warranty extended only to the employer. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co. (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
