Class9: Thomas v. Winchester

practice syllogism

• all reptiles are animals

• all alligators are reptiles

• therefore all alligators are ____

animals

rules create a right or a duty not for its own sake but

in order to further a public policy

in other words, legal rules are understood to advance policies that reflect

social values

what is more, legal rules “are usually not based on a single policy but represent _____ among sets of opposing policies”

compromises

how do maximum speed limits balance opposing policies

school zones

other policy questions to ask?

• How do the environmental laws balance opposing policies?

• How do laws regulating the safety of consumer goods balance opposing policies?

you need to always keep in mind policies and values when you analyze and apply legal rules

they dont exist in a vacuum

Rule (Problem of Generality)

In Garner there was a reasonable argument that an empty poultry shed mounted on iron bogie wheels WAS NOT a vehicle and also a reasonable argument that it WAS a “vehicle”?

analyzing statues

1. identify the statutory provision you wish to analyze.

2. Translate the provision into an “If ___, then ___” conditional statement.

3. Identify policies relevant to the statutory provision and scenario:

• (i) Does the broader statutory scheme have a section identifying its purposes. If so, what are the purposes?

• (ii) Does the legislative history or broader context reveal policies (e.g., the “mischief”) that led the legislature to pass the provision? If so, what are they?

• (iii) Does the provision implicate broader social or legal values? If so, what are they?

compare the “IF ___” part to the facts of your scenario

(i) If the facts clearly fit the “If ___” part, then a court is very likely to apply the “then ___” part.

(ii) If the facts clearly do not fit the “If ___” part, then a court is very unlikely to apply the “then ___” part.

(iii) If it’s debatable whether the facts fit the “If ___” part, then a court should apply the “then ___” part if doing so advances the policies relevant to the provision and scenario.

ejusdem generis

of the same kind (same things)

• ex. McBoyle: is airplane of the same kind? → vehicle description

redundancy

leg wouldnt have pit the words together if they didnt mean something

absurdity

leg write laws that make sense and arent absurd

we are still in step 2 which is

Analyze the apparently applicable sources of law to identify legal rules

analyzing appellate cases

analyzing case law is a much more complex undertaking than analyzing a statue

with appellate cases we need to look at:

• facts

• procedural history

• questions presented

• rules of law

• application of law to fact

• holding disposition

facts

these are the facts that make a difference in the court’s legal reasoning. Hold on to the facts...

we dont care about

irrelevant facts

procedural history

Procedural history should state “the precise nature of the decision in the lower court that has been appealed.” The nature of the decision in the lower court “determines the standard of review on appeal,” which, in turn, “determines . . . the effect that the appellate decision will have on future cases.” [40-41]

Where in Thomas v. Winchester does the court describe the procedural history?

para 4-5 + a little in para 1 (actions bought for damages)

procedural history where

court of appeals NY

what is the case citation missing and why?

it is missing the series because this is the original series/reporters

• no series number (ex. 2D or 3D)

• 6th volume

Thomas v Winchester is a

birthplace of new law

Where in Thomas v. Winchester does the court state the question presented?

para 6

what was the question presented

Whether the defendant, being a remote vendor of the medicine, and there being no privity or connection between him and the plaintiffs, the action can be maintained

key words in the issue

• motion for nonsuit

• privity

• remote vendor

motion for nonsuit

old term for motion to dismiss

privity

direct relationship

privity of contract

a direct contractual relationship between two parties (such as a buyer and the specific seller they purchased from).

remote vendor

seller that is far away from the buyer

dispositive facts

These are the facts that are necessary and must be present for the element to be satisfied

dispositive facts in T v W:

• belladonna was poisonous

• got it from a remote seller

• thomas got hurt

times where nothing was regulated →

hope these trusted individuals where selling you the right thing

Facts must also be sufficient

they are facts that are present to establish the element but which need not be present for it to be satisfied.

example of sufficient facts

guy goes to punch someone → misses

• need to make physical contact

• cant charge w assult bc its an element needed for assault to make that contact

sufficient facts (elements)

• who prepared the meds?

• where was it prepared?

• thomas took the meds

rules of law: In Thomas v. Winchester, what is the relationship between the question presented and the rules of law discussed in the case?

the relationship between the question presented (the legal issue) and the rules of law discussed is a direct exception to a strict rule

rule of law: What rule of law does Winchester say should apply?

he didnt make it/didnt breach duty and they should focus on those cases

rule of law: What rule of law does Thomas say should apply?

anyone who participated is liable (more of a modern day idea of suing everyone)

Application of Law to Fact: If the rule of law favored by Winchester applies, what reasoning or argument would you follow to resolve the case?

• Winchester had a contractual relationship with the intermediate purchaser, not Thomas. Therefore, Winchester did not owe Thomas a duty of care.

• The important dispute is therefore whether the ordinary privity rule applies to these facts.

Application of Law to Fact: If the rule of law favored by Thomas applies, what reasoning or argument would you follow to resolve the case?

• Her argument is that Winchester was not simply selling an ordinary defective product.

• He was dealing with poison.

• The belladonna was:

  • poisonous,

  • mislabeled as a harmless medicine,

  • placed into the stream of commerce, and

  • likely to be administered to someone who believed it was dandelion.

case law v enacted law

A case law rule differs from an enacted rule

for case and enacted law, the indeterminacy of the language of a case law rule provides the lawyer with the

opportunity to articulate the rule int he form most favorable to their client’s position

what does that mean:

laws made by judges (case law) are often flexible and open to interpretation so lawyers can strategically rephrase or framing a case law rule to best help their client win

in this case

they didnt have enacted law that fit, only case law

example of the case law

winterbottom v wright (10 Mees. & Welsb. 109,)

what is winterbottom v wright about?

have to have privy of contract and thats who you sue (which is not the case for T v W)

what is (10 Mees. & Welsb. 109,)

english case (very old)

• amer. hadnt develop their own caselaw so had to use english caselaw

What holding does Winchester seek in the case?

for it to be dismissed

What holding does Thomas seek?

compensation from Winchester + for them to be held liable

actual holding

affirmed: Winchester held liable

disposition

affirmed

what is the public policy favored here in winchester?

• promote safety of drugs

  • go into buy smth and knowing its not going to kill you

• protections from businesses/sellers

  • protection people from big businesses/industry

what is the mischief that cause public policy?

trying to sell bad good/drugs

holding

the decision in the case

what was the holding

winchester is liable

dictum

consists of statements made by the court that were not strictly necessary to the decision

dictum is not

binding in future cases

example of dictum

dissent in judicial decisions

disposition

the procedural directive that gives effect to the court’s decision

• what you have to do

example of disposition

judgement affirmed (upheld) (which is what happened in the case)

dissenting opinion is

non-binding; only statements that are supported by the majority have a binding effect

concurring opinions

Separate opinions written by a member of the majority but it is not the majority opinion.

the concurring opinions doesnt have

the support of the majority and does not have binding effect.

vertical precedent: appellate courts in a governmental unit are ____ to the trial courts ____ them

• superior

• below

vertical precedent: The highest appellate court in a governmental unit (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court or the N.Y. Court of Appeals) is ____ to all other courts in that governmental unit

• superior

vertical precedent: When a lower court considers the ____ issue that a court ____ to it has addressed in the past, the lower court ___ ____ the lead of its superior.

• same

• superior

• must follow

horizontal precedent (stare decisis): When a court considers the ____ issue ___ ___ ___ has addressed in a past decision, the court should resolve the issue in the same way unless exceptional conditions exist that warrant overruling the prior decision.

• same

• that same court

horizontal precedent (stare decisis): Precedent and stare decisis come into play when a legal issue in a present case is the same as an issue addressed in the past. ____ ___ ___ ___ for an issue a court is dealing with today ____ ___ ___ ___ __ an issue addressed in the past?

• what does it mean

• to be the same as

what is the manslaughter reasoning in T v W

• manslaughter - so dangerous to be sold to someone

• if she died he would be given criminal charges

• this means no winterbottom bc this can kill you

ejusdem generis in para 12

talks about other cases w serious mischief (like cases)

• Tessymond

• Regina v Swindall

dictum for this case

the cases werent binding bc they were english cases including winterbottom and ejusdem generis cases

vert precedent for T v W

T v W going to serve as precedent going forward

vertical court structure (state) (ny)

court of appeals

appellate

trial courts

local

vertical court structure (fed)

• supreme court

• circuit courts

• district courts

buffalo

appellate divison - 4th (state)

circuit courts - 2nd (fed)

district court - western (fed)

T v W facts

• THOMAS sued WINCHESTER to recover damages for negligently putting up, labeling and selling as and for the extract of dandelion (harmless) but instead having belladonna (deadly poison in job) which caused Thomas to get sicker.

• THOMAS being in ill health, her physician prescribed for her a dose of dandelion. Her husband purchased what was believed to be the medicine prescribed, at the store of FOORD, a physician and druggist in Cazenovia, Madison county, where the plaintiffs reside

• The medicine that was purchased was administered to Thomas 

• INJURIES/ALARMING EFFECTS: oldness of the surface and extremities, feebleness of circulation, spasms of the muscles, giddiness of the head, dilation of the pupils of the eyes, and derangement of mind

• Did recover but effected her in that short time (great danger) 

• The medicine administered was belladonna, and not dandelion.

• Dr. FOORD purchased the extract from JAS. S. ASPINWALL (druggist in NY) 

• ASPINWALL bought it from DEFENDANT (WINCHESTER) 

• DEFENDANT: engaged in manufacture and sale of certain vegetable extracts for medicinal purposes and in the purchase and sale of other

  • The extracts manufactured by him were put up in jars for sale, and those which he purchased were put up by him in like manner. The jars containing extracts manufactured by himself and those containing extracts purchased by him from others, were labeled alike.

• Labeled saying they were prepared by GILBERT (person employed by the defendant at a salary, as an assistant in his business; labeled this way bc he had previously engaged in the same business on his own account AND his labels rendered the articles more salable)

• Jar sold by ASPINWALL → FOORD → wasnt manufactured by the defendant WINCHESTER  

• Dandelion and belladonna resemble each other in color, consistence, smell, taste BUT SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM PEOPLE WHO HANDLE THIS/ACQUATINTED WITH THESE ARTICLES 

• GILBERTS labels were paid for by WINCHESTER and were used in his business with his knowledge and assent

• No imminent danger 

• In the present case the sale of the poisonous article was made to a dealer in drugs, and not to a consume

T v W procedural history

• Defendant motioned for nonsuit based on WINCHESTER being a remote vendor of the article and there was no connection, transaction, privity between him or the plaintiffs (THOMAS) 

• Judge overrules defendant's motion for a nonsuit

T v W holding

AFFIRMED (judged in plaintiffs favor) - A manufacturer who negligently mislabels an inherently dangerous substance is liable to a remote purchaser for injuries caused by that negligence, regardless of a lack of privacy.

T v W issue

• Whether the defendant, being a remote vendor of the medicine, and there being no privity or connection between him and the plaintiffs, the action can be maintained 

• Is a dealer in poisonous drugs civilly liable for an injury caused by the negligent mislabeling of a poison by their agent, even when sold through intermediate channels, on the grounds that the act was imminently dangerous to human life?

T v W rule/rationale

• But the case in hand stands on a different ground. The defendant was a dealer in poisonous drugs. Gilbert was his agent in preparing them for market. The death or great bodily harm of some person was the natural and almost inevitable consequence of the sale of belladonna by means of the false label 

• GILBERT WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MANSLAUGHTER IS THOMAS DIED BC SHE TOOK THE MEDS 

• Every man who, by his culpable negligence, causes the death of another, although without intent to kill, is guilty of 3 manslaughter. 

• (2 R. S. 662, § 19.):A chemist who negligently sells laudanum in a phial labeled as paregoric, and thereby causes the death of a person to whom it is administered, is guilty of manslaughter.

• (Tessymond’s case): “So highly does the law value human life, that it admits of no justification wherever life has been lost and the carelessness or negligence of one person has contributed to the death of another

• (Regina v. Swindall): And this rule applies not only where the death of one is occasioned by the negligent act of another, but where it is caused by the negligent omission of a duty of that other.

• The duty of care to avoid putting human life in imminent danger arises from the nature of the business and the inherent hazard of the product, not from a contract of sale.

  • Imminent danger exception: Unlike ordinary goods, sending a mislabeled poison into the market puts human life in immediate, foreseeable danger.

  • Foreseeability of Harm: The product was sold to a dealer, meaning the manufacturer knew the injury would not fall on the intermediate dealer, but rather on a remote, unknown purchaser.

  • Analogy to Inherent Hazards: The Court compared the mislabeled poison to leaving a horse and cart unattended in a busy street or placing a loaded gun in the hands of a child. In all these instances, the defendant is responsible for the probable, mischievous consequences of creating an extreme hazard.

  • Irrelevance of Privity: The contract between the manufacturer and the dealer does not excuse the wrong; it was simply the mechanism by which the dangerous object reached the injured plaintiff.

T v W alternative theory?

• A person cannot sue for negligence if the defendant’s only duty was to the person who originally bought the product through a contract. If there is no direct contract between the injured person and the marker, there is generally no right to sue (privity of contract) 

  • The Scenario: A builds a wagon poorly. A sells it to B, B sells it to C, and C rents it to D. The wagon breaks because of A's bad work, and D gets hurt.

  • The Outcome: D cannot sue A.

  • The Reason: A only promised to build a good wagon for B (the person who bought it). A owes nothing to the public or to third parties (D). A badly built wagon is not considered inherently dangerous to human life, so the danger to a third party is not an automatic or expected result of the bad work.

• Winterbottom v. Wright, (10 Mees. & Welsb. 109,)

  • Party A (Wright): Contracted with the Postmaster General to supply and maintain a mail coach in safe condition.

  • Party B (Atkinson): Contracted separately with the Postmaster General to supply the horses and drivers for the route.

  • Party C (Winterbottom/Plaintiff): A driver hired by Party B.

  • The Incident: While C was driving, a hidden defect caused the coach to break down, throwing C off and injuring him. C sued A for failing to properly maintain the vehicle 

  • ISSUE: Can an injured third party (C) sue a contractor (A) for negligence if the contractor's duty to maintain the equipment arose strictly from a contract with someone else?

  • JUDGEMENT: NO, judgement for the defendant (A) 

  • REASONING: A's duty to keep the coach in good condition, was a duty to the postmaster general, with whom he made his contract, and not a duty to the driver employed by the owners of the horses.

• In Longmeid v. Holliday, the distinction is recognized between an act of negligence imminently dangerous to the lives of others, and one that is not so. In the former case, the party guilty of the negligence is liable to the party injured, whether there be a contract between them or not; in the latter, the negligent party is liable only to the party with whom he contracted, and on the ground that negligence is a breach of the contract.

• But that doesnt apply to this case!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Winterbottom v. Wright, (10 Mees. & Welsb. 109,)

• Party A (Wright): Contracted with the Postmaster General to supply and maintain a mail coach in safe condition.

• Party B (Atkinson): Contracted separately with the Postmaster General to supply the horses and drivers for the route.

• Party C (Winterbottom/Plaintiff): A driver hired by Party B.

• The Incident: While C was driving, a hidden defect caused the coach to break down, throwing C off and injuring him. C sued A for failing to properly maintain the vehicle 

• ISSUE: Can an injured third party (C) sue a contractor (A) for negligence if the contractor's duty to maintain the equipment arose strictly from a contract with someone else?

• JUDGEMENT: NO, judgement for the defendant (A) 

• REASONING: A's duty to keep the coach in good condition, was a duty to the postmaster general, with whom he made his contract, and not a duty to the driver employed by the owners of the horses.