P was an employee in the coffee shop in the Huber Hotel owned by D. D leased the coffee shop to Mrs. Schultz, and exercised no control over her operation thereof. D did furnish the lessee with some cans of rat poison for the purpose of exterminating rats in the restaurant. The rat poison furnished by D was an ordinary commercial product, put up by a manufacturer and sold to the public through ordinary grocery stores. It was composed of phosphorus paste that was guaranteed to rid any premises of rats and mice. The warning on the label of the can stated: In case of poisoning, take an emetic to cause vomiting, after which take a stimulant and consult a physician at once. On the day of the accident, P lighted a match and extended it into the steam table at or near the place where the gas burner would ignite, but before she turned on the gas, there was a flash or explosion which apparently was caused by the ignition of a can of rat poison near her hand. P was severely burned on that hand and brought this action against D, the owner of the hotel. The court found that said label was notice only of the facts and statements contained therein, and that D had no other notice with respect to the nature of the poison except that which would be chargeable to common experience or common knowledge as to the inflammability or dangerous character of phosphorus. An expert testified that phosphorus in its pure state is highly inflammable, but the rat poison involved in this case was a paste compound containing from one and one-half to two and four-tenths per cent phosphorus. Due to evaporation of certain ingredients, a can of this paste would be less inflammable when first opened than after it had been opened and permitted to dry out for a while. A sample of the paste at its highest phosphorus content (two and fourteenths per cent.) was not inflammable even after being heated approximately 300 degrees Fahrenheit. In open court, a sample thereof was held in a flame and then burned slowly, but sputtered and became extinct when the flame was withdrawn. The expert testified that it was not dangerously inflammable, though he stated that if its contents were spilled on P's hand and a lighted match were held right against it, a painful injury would occur. The witness further testified that the phosphorus in the paste, as well as other ingredients, was poisonous if eaten. At the conclusion of the evidence and argument, the trial judge made conclusions of law. The court concluded that the printed matter on the can of rat poison was not sufficient to charge D with legal notice of any dangerously inflammable or explosive character thereof so as to render it liable in damages by reason of the accident in controversy in this action. The court held that to hold a person liable in negligence, the result complained of must be not only the direct and proximate but also the 'natural' result of the facts upon which the injury is based. Here, the accident was the direct and proximate result of the furnishing of the can of poison to Mrs. Schultz and of her use thereof, but it did not flow from its inherent character and intended use as poison. The result being unusual and not reasonably to be expected from poison, the court concluded that D is not liable in damages by reason of such unusual result. P made the contention that D was liable by reason of statutory law. The court held that the purpose of the statute was to protect against poisoning and not the alleged explosion. The court ruled for D, and P appealed. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.