Fredendall v. Abraham & Straus, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Universal Oil Products (Tex. 1978)
- Gregory v. White Truck & Equipment Co., Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)
- Sales Affiliates, Inc. v. McKisson (Tex. App. 1966)
- Schwartz v. Macrose Lumber & Trim Co. (New York Supreme Court 1966)
- Joseph C. Tropea v. Shell Oil Company and Maripet Supply Corporation (2d Cir. 1962)
- Harold Bigelow and Virginia Bigelow v. Agway, Inc., and Kemin Industries, Inc. (2d Cir. 1974)
- Barash v. K L M Royal Dutch Airlines (District Court, E.D. New York 1970)
- Frank Borowicz v. Chicago Mastic Company, Frank Borowicz v. Chicago Adhesive Products Company (7th Cir. 1966)
- Maiorino v. Weco Products Co. (N.J. 1965)
- Crotty v. Shartenberg's-New Haven, Inc. (Conn. 1960)
- Walton v. Sherwin-Williams Co. (8th Cir. 1951)
- Codling v. Paglia (N.Y. 1973)
- Alris, Inc. v. Gojer, Inc. (Civil Court of the City of New York 1973)
- Erdman v. Johnson Bros. Radio & Television Co. (Md. 1970)
- Gay v. A & P Food Stores (Civil Court of the City of New York 1963)
- Natale v. Pepsi-Cola Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1959)
- Taylor v. Jacobson (Mass. 1958)
- Parish v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (City of New York Municipal Court 1958)
- Gallagher v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1957)
- Nelson v. Anderson (Minn. 1955)
- Utica Mutual Insurance v. Amsterdam Color Works, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
- Ringstad v. I. Magnin & Co. (Wash. 1952)
- Landers v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (Or. 1943)
- Eisenbach v. Gimbel Bros., Inc. (N.Y. 1939)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff bought from defendant a gallon container of “ Globe Quick-Dry Fluid for Dry Cleaning.” A “ caution ” displayed thereon announced that “ the fluid contains ingredients which produce vapors, which if inhaled in large amounts, may cause discomfort and distress ” and that “Lwith reasonable care it can be used with absolute safety.” Among other “ precautions ” suggested were the following: “Always clean and dry the garment outdoors or in a room well ventilated by a cross draft. The room should be as cool as possible. After cleaning, garments should be hung outdoors or in a well ventilated room with cross draft until thoroughly dry.” Plaintiff read and understood these instructions.
She used nearly all the contents of the container in cleaning eight dresses. The cleaning was done in a small bathroom where the temperature was 83 degrees and *148 there was no cross-draft. As each dress was cleaned, it was hung up in the same room to dry. Plaintiff’s husband, who was in an adjacent room, called out to her “ that the odors were very strong and disagreeable.” After she had been so engaged for forty-five minutes, plaintiff was made sick by the fumes of the fluid. A judgment against defendant for the consequent damages has been affirmed as modified. The action is in form one for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability.
We think the evidence conclusively shows that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable care in the use of the fluid and that this default was an essential cause of her illness. We do not pass upon any other question.
The judgments should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.
Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., taking no part.
Judgments reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.