History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ralph Abernathy v. Schenley Industries
556 F.2d 242
| 4th Cir. | 1977
|
Check Treatment

556 F.2d 242

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.

No. 76-2424.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 3, 1977.
Decided June 7, 1977.

Ronald C. Williams, Charlotte, N. C., for appellant.

Hunter M. Jones, Charlotte, N. C. (Harry C. Hewson, Jones, Hewson & Woolard, Charlotte, N. C., on brief), for Schenley Industries, Inc., etc.

John G. Golding (Harvey L. Cosper, Jr., Golding, Crews, Meekins, Gordon & Gray, Charlotte, N. C., on brief), for Mecklenburg Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Before WINTER, BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

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.

2

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 labelling of intoxicating liquor, 27 U.S.C. § 205(e); 27 C.F.R. §§ 5.1-5.56. We affirm.

3

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).

4

AFFIRMED.

Case Details

Case Name: Ralph Abernathy v. Schenley Industries
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Published: Jun 7, 1977
Citation: 556 F.2d 242
Docket Number: 76-2424
Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.