Thomas v. Winchester

New York Court of Appeals · 1852 · Torts

6 N.Y. 397 (1852)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNegligenceProducts LiabilityPrivityremote vendormislabeled poisonimminent dangerduty to third persons

Facts

The defendant, engaged in manufacturing and selling medicinal extracts, sold a jar labeled as extract of dandelion that actually contained belladonna, a deadly poison. The jar was sold by the defendant to Aspinwall, then to Dr. Foord, and finally administered to Mrs. Thomas after her physician prescribed dandelion. Mrs. Thomas suffered severe poisoning symptoms but eventually recovered. The defendant had used labels stating the product was "prepared by A. Gilbert," although the contents of this jar had been purchased from another source and not manufactured by the defendant.

Issue

Can a remote vendor who negligently labels and sells a poisonous drug as a harmless medicine be held liable to an injured ultimate user despite the absence of contractual privity between them? More specifically, does the defendant owe a duty beyond his immediate vendee when his negligence puts human life in imminent danger?

Rule

When a person, in the course of business, negligently puts into the market an article imminently dangerous to human life, falsely labeled so that injury to third persons is the natural and probable consequence, that person owes a duty to those endangered and is liable in negligence even without privity of contract. By contrast, where the negligence is not imminently dangerous to life and amounts only to a breach of contract, liability runs only to the contracting party.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albany, Meridian Apothecary Supply bought a concentrated industrial solvent that can cause blindness if swallowed. Through careless relabeling, the wholesaler sold it to a neighborhood pharmacy as a mild digestive tonic, and the pharmacy later sold it to Lena Ortiz, who drank it as directed and was seriously injured.

Can Lena most likely recover in negligence from the wholesaler even though she never dealt with it directly?

Explanation. The majority rule is that privity is not required where, in the course of business, a defendant negligently places into the market an article imminently dangerous to human life under a false label, making injury to a remote user the natural and probable consequence. The duty arises from the danger created, not merely from the contract with the immediate vendee.