From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

May v. Gillette Safety Razor Company

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jun 6, 1984
464 N.E.2d 401 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984)

Opinion

June 6, 1984.

Negligence, Manufacturer. Warranty.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Howard G. Guggenheim for the plaintiff.

Sara Fleschner Francis J. Scannell for the defendant.


The plaintiff does not have a claim for relief on the negligence count as we do not consider the swallowing of a razor blade a risk which the defendant is required to anticipate. For similar reasons, see Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng. Rep. 145, 151-152 (1854), and White Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 10.4 (2d ed. 1980), the plaintiff may not recover consequential damages on the warranty claims even if the defendant had warranted that the blade was made of stainless steel, and the plaintiff could prove that because the blade had not shown on an x-ray, it must have been made of another material. We decline to reverse and remand where, at most, only nominal damages could be recovered. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 346 comment a (1981); Sessa v. Gigliotti, 165 Conn. 620, 622 (1973).

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

May v. Gillette Safety Razor Company

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jun 6, 1984
464 N.E.2d 401 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984)
Case details for

May v. Gillette Safety Razor Company

Case Details

Full title:HELEN MAY, individually and as administratrix, vs. GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR…

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jun 6, 1984

Citations

464 N.E.2d 401 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984)
18 Mass. App. Ct. 916

Citing Cases

McDonald v. Rockland Trust Company

Here, McDonald argues that allowance of the motion on that ground was error because, upon proof of liability,…

Lakian v. Globe Newspaper Co.

In the circumstances, the failure to award nominal damages would not be reversible error, even if under Mass.…