Brown v. McDonald's Corp.
655 N.E.2d 440, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 1016, 101 Ohio App. 3d 294 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers of a risk associated with a product ingredient if the manufacturer knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the risk, even if it affects only a small number of unusually susceptible consumers. A supplier who receives a product from a reputable manufacturer is not liable for negligence for failing to warn of a latent defect if the supplier neither knew nor had reason to know of the defect.
Facts:
- Susan Brown purchased a McLean Deluxe hamburger from a McDonald's franchise owned by Richard K. Potts.
- The hamburger contained carrageenan, an ingredient derived from seaweed.
- Shortly after consuming the hamburger, Brown, who had a known allergy to seafood, experienced a severe allergic reaction requiring a five-hour hospital stay.
- The manufacturers, McDonald's Corporation and Keystone Food Corporation, had participated in the development of the McLean hamburger.
- The manufacturers provided an informational flier listing carrageenan as an ingredient but did not warn of its seaweed origin or the potential for an allergic reaction.
- Brown purchased the hamburger at a drive-through window and did not receive the informational flier.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan and Marvin Brown (plaintiffs) sued McDonald’s Corporation and franchise owner Richard K. Potts in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- The plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add Keystone Food Corporation as a defendant.
- All three defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, dismissing the Browns' case.
- The Browns (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Ohio's product liability statute, does a food product manufacturer have a duty to warn of a potential allergic reaction to an ingredient, where the manufacturer knew or should have known of the risk, even if the plaintiff's susceptibility to that ingredient is uncommon?
Opinions:
Majority - Baird, J.
Yes. A food product manufacturer has a duty to warn of a potential allergic reaction to an ingredient where it knew or should have known of the risk. A plaintiff's unusual susceptibility to harm is not a complete bar to recovery but is a factor for the jury to consider in determining whether a manufacturer exercised reasonable care in its decision not to warn. Here, the Browns produced an expert affidavit creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the manufacturers (McDonald's and Keystone) should have known about the risk posed by carrageenan to allergic consumers. The court reasoned that under Ohio statute R.C. 2307.76, the likelihood and seriousness of potential harm are key factors. A jury could find that a manufacturer should have known of a risk even to a small number of consumers and that a warning was required. Therefore, summary judgment for the manufacturers was improper. However, summary judgment was proper for the supplier (Potts), the franchise owner. A supplier is only liable for negligence if he knew or had reason to know of a latent defect. Potts reasonably relied on the product's safety from a reputable manufacturer and had no knowledge of the risk, so he had no duty to warn.
Dissenting in part - Dickinson, J.
No. The plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the product was defective. While concurring that the supplier, Potts, was not liable, the dissent argues that summary judgment should also have been affirmed for the manufacturers. The plaintiffs' only evidence on the product's defectiveness was an expert affidavit from Dr. Schwartz. This affidavit was conclusory, stating that the manufacturers should have known of the risk without providing any underlying facts or data, such as the incidence of carrageenan allergies. Under the rules of evidence, an expert opinion must be based on disclosed facts or data. Because the affidavit lacked this necessary foundation, it was inadmissible and insufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'duty to warn' standard for manufacturers under Ohio's product liability law, particularly concerning allergens. It establishes that a consumer's 'unusual susceptibility' is not an absolute defense for a manufacturer, but rather a factor for the jury to weigh in a negligence-based reasonableness analysis. The ruling lowers the bar for plaintiffs with uncommon allergies to survive summary judgment, shifting the focus to what the manufacturer knew or should have known. It also reinforces the strong protection afforded to downstream suppliers and retailers under the 'reputable source' doctrine, insulating them from liability for latent defects they cannot reasonably be expected to discover.
