Thomas v. Winchester (1852)
Facts: Mrs. Thomas was prescribed dandelion extract, but the bottle was mislabeled and actually contained a poison. Mrs. Thomas's husband had purchased the extract from druggist Ford who purchased from druggist Aspinwall who purchased from Winchester. Thomas sued Winchester and the trial court ruled in Thomas’s favor. Winchester appealed, stating that because he was not the direct vendor of the item and there was no direct connection between he and Thomas, Thomas could not sue him.
Issue: Despite there being no direct connection between Thomas and Winchester, can Thomas sue Winchester
Decision: Yes
Reasons: The Court decided to make an exception to the theory of privity, based on Winterbottom v. Wright, in this case because of the inherent danger of poison, and death or great bodily harm was the natural result of the mislabeling of poison. Winchester had a duty to Thomas because it was the nature of his business that there would be a lack of privity if poison was mislabeled.

Sub brief: Winterbottom v. Wright (1842)
Facts: Wright owned a coach business and contracted with the Postmaster-General to supply coaches to carry the mail. As part of the contract, Wright agreed to keep the coaches in good condition and personally assume the duty of all maintenance and repairs. Atkinson also contracted with the Postmaster to supply horses and drivers for all coaches. Winterbottom, the plaintiff, was employed by Atkinson as a driver. One day, he was driving a coach which had been serviced by Wright. A latent defect caused the coach to break down, and threw Winterbottom to the ground. Winterbottom suffered injuries and brought suit against Wright for damages.
Issue: Whether Winterbottom was entitled to damages from Wright?
Decision: No
Reasons: The right to recover for a breach of contract, or privity of contract, is confined to those who enter into the contract. The contract was between the defendant and the Postmaster and not Winterbottom. If similar plaintiffs were allowed to sue there would be unlimited actions.
Loop v. Witchfield (1870)
Facts: A manufacturer negligently made a small balance wheel for use on a circular saw. The manufacturer pointed out the defect in the wheel to the buyer, who wished to purchase a cheap article and was willing to assume the risk of the defect. The buyer then loaned the saw to a neighbor who used it and, four years after the manufacture, was killed when the wheel flew apart.
Issue: Is Witchfield liable?
Decision: No, The court held the manufacturer not liable.
Reasons: The court ruled that wheel the defendant made was not an “inherently dangerous” instrument, established in Thomas v. Winchester. And there fore Witchfield could not be held to the same standard as Winchester.

Loose v. Clute (1873)
Facts: Clute manufactured a boiler, knowing at the time that the purchaser was to use it adjacent to dwelling houses and stores. The purchaser tested the boiler to its satisfaction and accepted it. After three months of use, the boiler exploded and damaged the adjacent property. The injured plaintiffs alleged that the boiler had been negligently manufactured, and sued on the theory that this breached a duty.
Issue: Is Clute liable?
Decision: No
Reasons: The court stated, “When the boiler was accepted, they [the defendants] ceased to have any further control over it or its management, and all responsibility for what was subsequently done with it devolved upon the company and those having charge of it." And that a boiler is not “inherently dangerous”.

Devlin v. Smith (1882)
Facts: Smith, a painter, employed Stevenson, a contractor, to build a 90-foot-tall scaffold for the express purpose of enabling the painter's workmen to stand upon it. A workman of Smith was killed by a fall, caused by the negligence of Stevenson in the construction of the scaffold upon which he was working. Devlin, an adminastator, sued both Smith and Stevenson. Her complaint was dismissed.
Issue: Whether Devlin could bring suit against the defendants?
Decision: Yes
Reasons: The court found that there was sufficient evidence to require the submission to the jury of the question of whether the failure of the scaffold was attributable to negligence in its construction. The question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was also one for the jury.
Torgesen v. Schultz (1908)
Facts: Torgesen loss an eye, when a bottle of aerated water, manufactured by Schultz, exploded. Torgesen brought suit against Schultz. The cans were sold to plaintiff by a druggist on a very warm day and left in the heat.
Issue: Can plaintiff bring suit against Schultz?
Decision: Yes
Reasons: Torgesen can recover damages despite no privity of contract, because defect in manufacturing of bottle of aerated water made it inherently dangerous to those nearby when used for natural purpose.
Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1914)
Facts: Macpherson was injured after he was thrown from his car when the wheel collapsed. Buick had sold the automobile to a retail dealer, who in turn sold it to Macpherson. The wheel, which was sold to Buick by another manufacturer, was made of defective wood. Evidence suggested that the defect could have been discovered through reasonable inspection, but no inspection occurred.
Issue: Can Buick be held liable for Macpherson’s injuries?
Decision: Yes
Reasons: The defendant knew that it was manufacturing equipment that was dangerous in nature. The nature of an automobile gives warning of probable danger if its construction is defective. Furthermore, since Buick sold the car to a dealer, it knew that the vehicle will be used by persons other than the buyer.