Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Co.
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
| Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court |
| Full case name | Flora Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Company |
| Decided | January 8, 1918 |
| Citations | Mass. 86; 120 N.E. 396 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Arthur Prentice Rugg, Charles DeCourcy, John Crawford Crosby, Edward Pierce, James Carroll |
Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Company was a tort case decided in 1918 by the New York Court of Appeals.
Background
[edit]Flora Ash was injured by a small black tack found in her blueberry pie at the defendant’s restaurant.[1] Due to a lack of direct proof the court refused to apply the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,[2][3] and that because of this lack of evidence the defendant could not be found to be negligent.[4][5] The case is important as it is one of many during that time that gave rise to the "reasonable expectation" test for addressing silliar tort claims.[6][7]
See Also
[edit]Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.
References
[edit]- ^ Schoenbach, Frances R. (1935). "Food - Liabilities for Injuries - Construction of Statute - Evidence of Negligence". Boston University Law Review. 15: 851.
- ^ W., J. B. (1919). "Sales: Liability for the Presence of Mice and Other Uncommon Things in Food". Michigan Law Review. 17 (3): 261–264. doi:10.2307/1277143. ISSN 0026-2234. JSTOR 1277143.
- ^ Shain, Mark (1944). "Res Ipsa Liquitor". Current Legal Thought. 11: 11.
- ^ Said, Zahr K. (August 9, 2021). "Developments in Tort Law and Early Products Liability Law". Tort Law: A 21st-Century Approach. Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction. Retrieved August 29, 2024.
- ^ Ford, Richard, ed. (1920). "Issue 24". Washington Law Reporter. 48 (24). Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America: 377.
- ^ Lobel, William (May 1, 1968). "What is "Fit to Eat" -- The Reasonable Expectation Test". University of Miami Law Review. 22 (3): 737.
- ^ "The Decline of Caveat Emptor in the Sale of Food". Fordham Law Review. 4 (2): 295. January 1, 1935.