Cengage Advantage Books: Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business 3rd Edition by Marianne Jennings

تمرين 6

Estate of Pinkham v. Cargill, Inc. 55 A.3d 1 (Me. 2012)
When Turkey Sandwiches Stick in Your Throat
Facts
Stanley Pinkham consumed a hot turkey sandwich during his break as a line cook at Dysart's Truck Stop and Restaurant. Cargill, Inc. manufactured the boneless turkey product in Pinkham's sandwich, and the kitchen staff at Dysart's occasionally found pieces of bone in that turkey product. In the middle of eating the sandwich, Mr. Pinkham experienced severe and sudden pain in his upper abdominal area and thought that he might be suffering from a heart attack. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital where a doctor concluded that Mr. Pinkham's "esophageal tear or perforation" was caused by bones that were later removed from his esophagus. Mr. Pinkham brought suit against Cargill and Poultry Products of Maine for selling defective and unreasonably dangerous goods. The lower court granted summary judgment for Cargill and the estate appealed.[1]
Judicial Opinion
JABAR, Justice
Currently, there are two tests that courts apply when faced with a defective food product claim. The traditional test is called the "foreign-natural" doctrine.
"The 'foreign-natural' doctrine provides there is no liability if the food product is natural to the ingredients; whereas, liability exists if the substance is foreign to the ingredients, and the manufacturer can be held liable for injuries." Newton v. Standard Candy Co., 2008 WL 752599 (D.Neb. 2008). "The reasonable expectation test provides that, regardless whether a substance in a food product is natural to an ingredient thereof, liability will lie for injuries caused by the substance where the consumer of the product would not reasonably have expected to find the substance in the product." [W]e adopt the "reasonable expectation" test in Maine. We conclude that the Legislature intended to align itself with the Restatement's objectives, and therefore the Legislature intended the "reasonable expectation" test to be used in applying the language of [the Restatement].
With the proper test for evaluating the Estate's strict liability claim established, we can now turn our attention to whether the Estate presented enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, and therefore survive summary judgment and proceed to trial.
The Estate presented evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the turkey product caused Pinkham's injury. Dr. Stern testified that he believed that the injury was a "perforation secondary to a foreign body." The record demonstrates that the "foreign body" was either a small piece of bone or cartilage, or a larger piece of bone. There is direct evidence of the presence of the smaller pieces of bone or cartilage: Stern actually saw them. There is no direct evidence of a larger piece of bone, but the summary judgment record does contain indirect evidence that a larger piece of bone could have been present in the turkey product Pinkham consumed, but may have passed, undetected, from Pinkham's throat. The indirect evidence is found in the deposition of a Dysart's employee, who testified that larger pieces of bone had regularly been discovered in Cargill's "boneless" turkey product in the past, and in the expert deposition testimony of John F. Erkkinen, M.D., who acknowledged that a larger bone piece could have passed through Pinkham's esophagus and into his stomach.
Whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find a particular item in a food product is normally a question of fact that is left to a jury. The Superior Court noted this, but nonetheless decided that a food bolus containing one-to-two-millimeter bone fragments is not defective as a matter of law. In making this determination, the court erred. The question of whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find a turkey bone or a bone fragment large and/or sharp enough to cause an esophageal perforation in a "boneless" turkey product is one best left to the fact-finder. At trial, the jury will have an opportunity to determine whether a foreign body in the turkey product caused Pinkham's injury, what the foreign body was, and whether Cargill is liable as a result.
Reversed.
Case Questions
1) Explain the differences between the foreign-natural test and the reasonable expectations test.
2) List the evidence that the court cites as raising questions of fact.
3) Describe what this court sees as the issues the jury must determine.