RALPH S. ABERNATHY, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF EURAL FRANK ABERNATHY, APPELLANT,
v.
SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES, INC., SCHENLEY DISTILLERS, INC., SCHENLEY AFFILIATED BRANDS CORPORATION, MECKLENBURG BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, APPELLEES

4th Cir. | 1977-06-07
No. 76-2424
Before WINTER, BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
556 F.2d 242 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1977) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the manufacturer and seller did not violate federal statutes by failing to warn of ethanol poisoning hazards on whiskey labels.


Facts & Procedural History

The administrator of an estate sued the whiskey manufacturer and seller, alleging failure to warn of ethanol poisoning hazards on labels. The district…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Ralph S. Abernathy, administrator of the estate of Eural Frank Abernathy, who died from acute ethanol poisoning, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing his action. He alleges that Schenley, as manufacturer, and Mecklenburg Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control, as seller, violated federal statutes by failing to have their labels warn of the hazard of such poisoning.

The district court concluded that there was no cause of action under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, because the whiskey was neither misbranded nor adulterated within the meaning of the statute. 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 343, and 351. It further held that the Consumer Products Safety Act does not apply to food, and that beverage alcohol is a food under the statute. 15 U.S.C. § 2052. Finally, the court concluded that because Schenley had followed the relevant regulations in having its label officially approved, it had met its obligation under the statute pertaining to the label-ling of intoxicating liquor, 27 U.S.C. § 205(e); 27 C.F.R. §§ 5.1-5.56. We affirm.

We also conclude that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying pendent jurisdiction to Abernathy’s state law claims. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

AFFIRMED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw