133 Ohio St. 291 - Sicard v. Distributing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the sale of an article, the seller owes a duty beyond the mere contract. Not only must the goods be according to contract, but if used according to directions they must not carry harm to the buyer. In Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (9 Ed.j, page 2, it is said: ‘There may be a tort which arises out of breach of contract and yet is independent of it.’ In the manufacture and sale of goods, the seller may not include therein, beyond the terms of the contract, anything which, unknown to the buyer, will cause the latter injury. This extra duty to refrain from including in the article any dangerous substance unknown to the buyer may be illustrated in the bestowal of a gift from one to another. Even though there be no purchase price, one has no right to bestow an article containing a hidden danger on another as a gift, knowing that the usé thereof by such other will cause the latter injury. But where there is consideration, the responsibility to refrain from including in any such article any hidden danger is very much greater. There is the obligation that the goods will be fit for the particular purpose intended and the further duty to refrain from including therein any hidden danger unknown to the buyer. Failure to meet the first obligation is a breach of warranty, express or implied; failure to meet the second duty is negligence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 106 Ohio App. 265 - Markovich v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc. · Anton v. Ford Motor Company

2. “It is urged * * * that inasmuch as he was only the distributor and not the manufacturer, he should not be held liable for any defect or injurious substance in the hair dye known as Roux Shampoo Tint. It is also urged that since the product was sold in package form that he should not be held liable any more than a retail druggist who might have sold it over the counter. * * * The defendant here was not a mere retailer who sold the hair dye to the plaintiff in package form. The defendant was the (emphasis supplied) distributor for the manufacturer of Roux Shampoo Tint. * * * 31”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hazel Bathory v. The Procter & Gamble Distributing Company, Hazel Bathory, Plaintiff-Cross v. The Procter & Gamble Distributing Company, Defendant-Cross

3. ““1. Where, in an action against the distributor of a hair dye, inherently dangerous, by a purchaser thereof from a local dealer, the evidence shows that the purchaser, in using the hair dye according to directions contained in a leaflet accompanying it, proximately sustained both personal injuries and damages to her business as a beauty parlor operator, it is not error prejudicial to the defendant distributor for the trial court to submit the case to the jury on the issue of negligence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 106 Ohio App. 265 - Markovich v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc.