Magrine v. Krasnica - 94 N.J. Super. 228, 227 A.2d 539 (Cnty. Ct. 1967)

Rule:

Warranties of fitness are regarded by law as an incident of a transaction because one party to the relationship is in a better position than the other to know and control the condition of the chattel transferred and to distribute the losses which may occur because of a dangerous condition the chattel possesses. These factors make it likely that the party acquiring possession of the article will assume it is in a safe condition for use and therefore refrain from taking precautionary measures himself. 

Facts:

Plaintiffs, Frances Magrine and Alfred Magrine, bought a strict liability action against defendant dentist for personal injuries caused by breaking of hypodermic needle in Frances’ jaw while needle was being used by defendant dentist in an injection procedure. Parties agreed that the break was due to a latent defect in the needle. The Magrines relied upon strict liability, breach of warranty, and breach of contract to recover. They did not assert negligence of the dentist. 

Issue:

Should "strict liability" be imposed on the dentist?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court refused to impose strict liability upon the dentist. Defendant was in no better position than plaintiff wife since he neither created the defect nor possessed any better capacity or expertise than she had to discover or correct it. Court also noted that defendant had not put needle in stream of commerce or promoted its purchase. Court held plaintiffs were not without remedy since they could reach supplier of defective needle by proper use of discovery procedures.