## Facts

- Max Feinberg owned a small cigar/tobacco store in a skid-row area of Philadelphia and sold “Sterno,” a solidified alcohol fuel intended for heating.
- Feinberg sold Sterno under circumstances supporting an inference that he knew purchasers intended to drink it (by diluting it), not use it as fuel.
- In December 1963, Feinberg bought “institutional” Sterno that contained a substantially higher methanol concentration (54%) than previously sold product.
- The institutional cans were prominently labeled “Danger. Poison; Not for home use. For commercial and industrial use only,” and displayed a skull and crossbones.
- Feinberg nonetheless continued selling the institutional Sterno to the same clientele, in the same manner as earlier, lower-methanol Sterno.
- Over a short period, numerous cans were sold and five individuals died from methanol poisoning after ingesting Sterno-based beverages.
- Feinberg was convicted in the trial court on five counts of involuntary manslaughter; the prosecution also pursued a theory that his conduct violated the Pennsylvania Pharmacy Act, supporting misdemeanor-manslaughter.

## Issues

1. Whether selling a lawful commercial product can constitute involuntary manslaughter when the seller continues sales despite clear poison warnings and knowledge of foreseeable misuse for drinking.
2. Whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently established that Feinberg’s sales were the proximate cause of each victim’s methanol-poisoning death.
3. Whether Sterno fell within the Pennsylvania Pharmacy Act so that a violation could support a misdemeanor-manslaughter theory.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed involuntary manslaughter convictions as to four deaths, holding the evidence supported findings of criminal negligence and proximate causation.
- The Superior Court found the evidence insufficient on one count because the causal connection to Feinberg’s sales was too attenuated; that conviction was not sustained.
- The Superior Court held the Pennsylvania Pharmacy Act did not apply to Sterno as a fuel product and rejected misdemeanor-manslaughter premised on that statute.
- One judge dissented in part, disputing the sufficiency and reach of criminal liability on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary manslaughter includes an unintentional killing occurring during: (a) an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or (b) a lawful act performed in an unlawful manner.
- When the underlying act is lawful, liability requires criminal negligence: a marked departure from prudent conduct showing disregard for human life or indifference to consequences.
- Causation may be proven by circumstantial evidence if it establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and is inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence; the law does not require elimination of every speculative possibility.
- A seller’s knowledge of foreseeable dangerous misuse, combined with prominent warnings of lethal risk and continued distribution to intended misusers, can support a finding of criminal negligence and foreseeability-based proximate cause.
- Regulatory statutes aimed at “drugs” or “medicines” do not necessarily reach non-medicinal commercial products merely because they are poisonous when misused.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court held that a retailer who continued selling clearly labeled poisonous institutional Sterno to customers he knew intended to drink it could be found criminally negligent, supporting involuntary manslaughter for four methanol-poisoning deaths, but that one death lacked sufficient proof of causation and that the Pennsylvania Pharmacy Act did not apply to Sterno.


Commonwealth v. Feinberg, 211 Pa. Super. 100, 234 A.2d 913 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1967)