TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hoenig v. Central Stamping Company

John Hoenig, Respondent, v. Central Stamping Company, Appellant

Hoenig v. Cent. Stamping Co., 6 N.E.2d 415 (N.Y. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 31, 1936
Judges
Crane
Citations
6 N.E.2d 415273 N.Y. 4851936 N.Y. LEXIS 1495

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

*486 Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Lough-ran and Finch, JJ. Crane, Ch. J., dissents in the following opinion:

Dissent — Crane

Crane, Ch. J.

(dissenting). This proposed decision carries the doctrine of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

( 217 N. Y. 382 ) entirely too far.

It would make the manufacturer of every coffee pot or dishpan liable for the consequences of a broken handle, no matter how far removed the injured person might be from the original purchaser. There must be a limit somewhere. There must be something more than a possibility of danger, at least a probability. An exploding coffee urn or glass jar or breaking wheel will almost certainly cause serious injury. The manufacturer alone can guard against such defects. Not so with handles to receptacles which may be safely used.

This coffee urn was so heavy when filled that the plaintiff himself says that they first lifted it upon the stove and then filled it with hot water from the pail. Nowhere does he explain why it could not have been left upon the gas stove and coffee served from there or poured out into other receptacles. If it went in from a pail at one end, there is no reason stated why it could not come out in a pail at the other end. Instead of that the plaintiff, knowing it was too heavy to lift when filled, attempted to remove it from the stove after the contents had been . heated. This is his testimony. There is nothing in the evidence to show that coffee urns of this weight were usually carried around by the handles or that the manufacturer had any reason to suppose that they would be when filled with boiling substance.

For these reasons I do not think that the plaintiff made out a case, and that his complaint should be dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1938: 11941: 11946: 11947: 11955: 11956: 11957: 11961: 11962: 11963: 11966: 11968: 11985: 119382026peak 1938 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Behringer v. William Gretz Brewing Co.169 A.2d 249 (Del. Super. Ct. 1961)
  2. Ford Motor Company v. Marvin R. Mathis322 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1963)
  3. Mull v. Colt Co.31 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1962)
  4. Simmons Company v. Hardin43 S.E.2d 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
  5. Home Warranty Corporation v. Johnnie L. Caldwell, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Georgia777 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir. 1985)
  6. Brooks v. Hill-Shaw Co.117 F.2d 682 (7th Cir. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Home Warranty Corporation v. Johnnie L. Caldwell, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Georgia777 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir. 1985)
  2. Kross v. Kelsey Hayes Co.29 A.D.2d 901 (1968)
  3. Beauchesne v. Coleman Co.216 N.E.2d 96 (Mass. 1966)
  4. Ford Motor Company v. Marvin R. Mathis322 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1963)
  5. Mull v. Colt Co.31 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1962)
  6. Behringer v. William Gretz Brewing Co.169 A.2d 249 (Del. Super. Ct. 1961)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916) 1,130

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list