## Facts

- Winchester manufactured and sold medicinal vegetable extracts under his trade labels.
- A jar containing extract of belladonna (a deadly poison) was falsely labeled as “extract of dandelion” (a relatively harmless medicine).
- Winchester sold the mislabeled jar to a New York druggist (Aspinwall), who resold it to an upstate physician/druggist (Dr. Foord).
- Mrs. Thomas’s physician prescribed dandelion; Mr. Thomas bought “dandelion” from Dr. Foord, who dispensed from the mislabeled jar.
- Mrs. Thomas ingested belladonna, became violently ill, and suffered serious injury.
- Belladonna and dandelion closely resembled one another, making correct labeling critical for safe use.

## Issues

1. Whether a manufacturer who mislabels a poisonous medicine owes a duty of care in negligence to an injured consumer lacking contractual privity.
2. Whether placing a mislabeled poison into commerce is an “imminently dangerous” act creating a duty to remote purchasers and users.
3. Whether negligence by intermediate sellers or dispensers severs proximate causation or bars recovery against the manufacturer.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed a plaintiff’s verdict awarding damages for Mrs. Thomas’s injuries.
- The court held Winchester owed a duty of care extending beyond his immediate vendee because mislabeling a poison as a harmless drug creates imminent danger to human life.
- The absence of privity did not bar recovery where the defendant’s conduct created a direct risk of serious bodily harm to foreseeable users.
- Intermediary conduct did not absolve Winchester where his mislabeling was a direct and concurring cause of the injury.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant who negligently places into commerce an article dangerous to human life, falsely represented as safe, may be liable to foreseeable injured persons without contractual privity.
- When the negligent act itself creates imminent danger of serious bodily harm, the duty is imposed by tort law and extends to those foreseeably exposed to the danger.
- The chain of distribution does not necessarily break proximate cause; negligent mislabeling of a dangerous product can remain an operative, concurring cause at the time of injury.
- Liability is not limited to “ordinary” negligent performance of a contract when the conduct involves a poison or similarly dangerous article likely to reach and injure remote users relying on the representation.

## Conclusion

The court held that a manufacturer who sends a mislabeled poison into the market owes a duty of reasonable care to remote purchasers and consumers foreseeably endangered by the label, and may be liable for resulting injuries notwithstanding lack of privity or intervening distribution.


Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397 (N.Y. 1852)