About: Thomas v. Winchester     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FThomas_v._Winchester

Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397 (1852), which established the "imminent danger to human life" doctrine, was at the head of the cases in assaulting the protective wall of privity in the tort field. Subsequent examples include: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., , and finally, Judge Jones's landmark holding in , in which the Court demolished what was left of the privity barrier in tort cases by adopting the doctrine of strict products liability.

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Thomas v. Winchester
rdfs:comment
  • Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397 (1852), which established the "imminent danger to human life" doctrine, was at the head of the cases in assaulting the protective wall of privity in the tort field. Subsequent examples include: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., , and finally, Judge Jones's landmark holding in , in which the Court demolished what was left of the privity barrier in tort cases by adopting the doctrine of strict products liability.
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
has abstract
  • Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397 (1852), which established the "imminent danger to human life" doctrine, was at the head of the cases in assaulting the protective wall of privity in the tort field. Subsequent examples include: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., , and finally, Judge Jones's landmark holding in , in which the Court demolished what was left of the privity barrier in tort cases by adopting the doctrine of strict products liability. In Thomas v. Winchester, the Court, departing from the old common law rule in Winterbottom v. Wright, held that a commercial packager of a poison falsely labeled as harmless medicine, who sold it to a druggist who, in turn, sold it to the plaintiff who then ingested it should be liable for her acute distress. The Court found a way around the lack of privity between the consumer and the packager by adopting the rule that a party who puts falsely labeled poison into the market and thus "puts human life in imminent danger" should respond in damages to the ultimate consumer.
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
is foaf:primaryTopic of
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git51 as of Sep 16 2020


Alternative Linked Data Documents: PivotViewer | iSPARQL | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3321 as of Jun 2 2021, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc25), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2021 OpenLink Software