Jump to content

Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Co.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Ash v. Childs)

Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Co.
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Full case name Flora Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Company
DecidedJanuary 8, 1918 (1918-01-08)
CitationsMass. 86; 120 N.E. 396
Court membership
Judges sittingArthur 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]
  1. ^ Schoenbach, Frances R. (1935). "Food - Liabilities for Injuries - Construction of Statute - Evidence of Negligence". Boston University Law Review. 15: 851.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ Shain, Mark (1944). "Res Ipsa Liquitor". Current Legal Thought. 11: 11.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ Ford, Richard, ed. (1920). "Issue 24". Washington Law Reporter. 48 (24). Washington, District of Colombia, United States of America: 377.
  6. ^ Lobel, William (May 1, 1968). "What is "Fit to Eat" -- The Reasonable Expectation Test". University of Miami Law Review. 22 (3): 737.
  7. ^ "The Decline of Caveat Emptor in the Sale of Food". Fordham Law Review. 4 (2): 295. January 1, 1935.