From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boyd v. American Can Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1936
249 App. Div. 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Opinion

November 23, 1936.


Order denying motion of the defendant American Can Company to dismiss the complaint reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Neither the can nor the key is inherently or imminently dangerous within the rule laid down in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. ( 217 N.Y. 382). Each is an appliance in ordinary use and not an article which, if imperfectly constructed, is reasonably certain to cause injury to a person using it. The appellant-manufacturer may not be charged with negligence where some unusual result occurs that cannot reasonably be foreseen and is not within the compass of reasonable probability. It is not enough that in the intended use injury is possible. ( Cullem v. Renken Dairy Co., 247 App. Div. 742, and cases cited.) Young, Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Boyd v. American Can Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1936
249 App. Div. 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
Case details for

Boyd v. American Can Company

Case Details

Full title:EILEEN BOYD and DAVID BOYD, Respondents, v. AMERICAN CAN COMPANY, Sued…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 23, 1936

Citations

249 App. Div. 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Citing Cases

Smolen v. Grandview Dairy, Inc.

"A milk bottle is a simple appliance in ordinary use not inherently dangerous", and not involving "the…

Poplar v. Bourjois, Inc.

( Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 346, supra.) For similar reasons the complaints were…