Cargill, Inc. v. Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc.
1995 WL 713216, 71 F.3d 545 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party to a contract owes a duty of care to a foreseeable and identifiable third party who is likely to be harmed by the negligent performance of that contract, particularly when the harm consists of purely economic losses stemming from damage to the third party's brand reputation.
Facts:
- Cargill, Inc. produces and markets premium frozen turkeys under the 'Honeysuckle White' brand name.
- Two grocery distributors, Borman's, Inc., and Foodland Distributors, purchased turkeys from Cargill and independently contracted with Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc. to store them.
- Cargill shipped the turkeys directly to Boag's warehouse at the instruction of its customers.
- While in Boag's exclusive control, some of the Honeysuckle White turkeys were allowed to thaw and were subsequently refrozen.
- Boag released the spoiled turkeys into the stream of commerce for public sale without notifying anyone of the thawing incident.
- Just before Thanksgiving in 1991, consumers began complaining about spoiled turkeys, leading Cargill to discover the widespread spoilage.
- Cargill was forced to issue a costly general recall of its products in the Detroit area to protect the public and mitigate damage to its brand.
- The recall and resulting negative publicity caused Cargill to suffer significant economic losses, including recall costs and diminished sales.
Procedural Posture:
- Cargill, Inc. filed a negligence action against Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The district court denied Boag's pre-trial motions to dismiss the complaint and limit Cargill's potential damages.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cargill in the amount of $820,980.96.
- The district court entered judgment on the verdict and denied Boag's post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial.
- Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warehouse operator that negligently damages goods owe a duty of care to the manufacturer of those goods, with whom it has no contractual relationship, for foreseeable economic losses such as brand reputation damage and recall costs?
Opinions:
Majority - Nelson, David A.
Yes. A warehouse operator owes a duty of care to a non-contracting manufacturer for foreseeable economic losses. Michigan law permits a tort action for the negligent performance of a contract even without privity between the parties. The decisive factor is the foreseeability of harm; it was readily foreseeable to Boag that if it mishandled the turkeys, the brand name affixed to the product would suffer and the manufacturer, Cargill, would incur costs to mitigate the damage. Cargill was also an identifiable plaintiff, as Boag received the branded turkeys directly from them. The court rejected Boag's defense based on the economic loss doctrine, holding that the doctrine applies to transactions for the sale of goods, not the provision of services like warehousing. Furthermore, Cargill's tort claim is not preempted by UCC § 2-722, which was intended to expand, not restrict, standing. Finally, the limitation-of-liability provisions in Boag's contracts with the distributors do not apply to Cargill, as Cargill was a stranger to those contracts and a foreseeable victim of Boag's negligence.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that a duty of care for purely economic loss can extend to a third-party manufacturer who is foreseeable and identifiable, even without a contractual relationship. The court's distinction between a sale of goods (where the economic loss doctrine might apply) and a provision of services (where it does not) creates an important avenue for recovery for brand owners. This precedent strengthens the legal position of manufacturers against downstream service providers whose negligence can cause substantial reputational and financial harm, reinforcing the principle that foreseeability is the key determinant for establishing a duty in tort.
Unlock the full brief for Cargill, Inc. v. Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc.