Hide Article Text (OCR)
SUPREME COURTON BURK CASEHOLDS CREAMERY PACKAGE CO. WAS NEGLIGENT.FAILED TO LABEL ’ JUGNEW RULING ON LIABILITY OF FIRMS HANDLING POISON.Peculiar Accident to Farm Hand NearFonda—Mr*. Charfe* Thoma*Lottng Eyeaight—State Nev**,Des Moines, March 10.—The supreme court yesterday affirmed the de- j cision at Waterloo against the Creamery Package Manufacturing company, awarding damages to Henry P. Burk on account of the death of his minor son, who drane sulphuric acid out of a jug sold, unlabeled, by the company.The boy took the jug for one containing buttermilk, as the creamery kept both buttermilk and sulphuric acid injugs.. The employes of the creamery were allowed to drink buttermilk out of the . jugs. . The 17-year-old - son of Burk was lawfully at the creamery on January 26, 1903, and asked an employe if he could drink buttermilk out of a jug. The employe did not know the boy had an eye on the sul*: phurie acid jug, but thought he was looking at the buttermilk sold to one' Kiedel. The boy died the next day.Creameries use sulphuric acid in testing milk and cream for butter fat The code provides-that if anyone de-. liver to any other person any poison-.• ous substanee without having the word “poison” and the true name thereof labeled on the package containing the poison/ he shall be deemed guilty of a. misdemeanor. Violation of such statutes universally is held to be negligence. It was claimed that the owner of the jug, and not the creamery, was responsible for the injury; but the supreme'court thinks not *. Real -Law in Case,The court announces the real'law on the subject, as follows:“While there are some loose expressions in the books tq the effect that one is hot liable for negligence unless ' tbe results of his. acts might reason-, ably hay© been foreseen by him, thetrue doctrine, as we understand it is that it is not necessary'to a-defendant’s liability that the consequences of his negligence should have been foreseen. It is sufficient if the injuries are the natural, though not the necessary or inevitable, rfesult of.the wrong —such injuries as are likely under or-' dinary circumstances to ens.ue from the act or omission in question. The . test, after all, is, would ordinary prudence have suggested to the person .sought fco.be charged .with negligence that his act or omission would probably result in injury to soine one. The particular result need not be such as that it should have been foreseen.”iowa Supreme Court Decisions.4m * *Iowa Brick Manufacturing Co. vs. O. ■ P. Herrick, appellant, and others, Polk district, W. H. McHenry, judge. Ae-; tion to recover price of brick. Affirmed- Opinion by Sherwin.S. Y. Eggert, appellant, vs. Helen E. Smith, Platt et al., Wright district, W. X). Evans, judge. Affirmed. Opinion by Weaver. Action was enforce. specific performance of contract to sell real estate.Henry F, Burk vs. Creamery Package ManufaeturingCo., appellant, Blaek-kawk district, Franklin C. Platt, judge. Action for damages. Affirmed. • Opinion by Weaver, 'James Keegan vs. M. J. Rock et aL, appellants, Iowa district, O. A. By-ington, judge. Action to foreclose• ’ *mortgage. Reversed. Opinion by McClain.Fred Plagge vs. Dick Mensing, appellant, Franklin district, J. H. Richard, judge. Action to enjoin drains. Reversed. Opinion by, Ladd.Marion F. Bartholomew, vs. E. B. Green, appellant, Iowa district, O. A. Byington, judge. Action on notes. Af-
Newspaper Details
Waterloo Daily Reporter
Waterloo, Iowa, US
Fri, Mar 10, 1905
Page 6
Full Page
Clipped by
Waterloo P.
IA, USA 19 Jun 2021
Other Publications Near Waterloo, Iowa
Iowa State Reporter
Waterloo Daily Reporter
Waterloo Evening Courier
Waterloo Courier
Illustrated Atlas of Black Hawk County Iowa
