Lexplug logoLexplug

Doyle v. Pillsbury Co.

Supreme Court of Florida
10 Fla. L. Weekly 424, 476 So. 2d 1271 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To recover for physical injuries resulting from the discovery of a foreign object in a food product, the plaintiff must have ingested a portion of the contaminated food; merely observing the object is insufficient to establish liability.


Facts:

  • Gerald Doyle opened a can of peas.
  • His wife, Marie Doyle, looked into the open can.
  • Marie Doyle observed a large insect floating on the surface of the peas.
  • In alarm, she jumped back, fell over a chair, and suffered physical injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • Gerald and Marie Doyle filed a lawsuit against The Pillsbury Company, Green Giant Company, and Publix Super Markets, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Green Giant and Publix, finding the Doyles' action was barred by the 'impact rule'.
  • The Doyles, as appellants, appealed to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
  • The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.
  • The appellate court then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.

Locked

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 plaintiff have a valid claim for physical injuries sustained as a result of observing a foreign object in a food product if the plaintiff never ingested any portion of the food?


Opinions:

Majority - McDonald, J.

No. A claim for physical injuries caused by observing a foreign object in food is not valid if the plaintiff never ingested any of the food. The court's reasoning is grounded in foreseeability, not the traditional 'impact rule.' While it is foreseeable that a consumer may become ill after ingesting a portion of a contaminated food product, it is not foreseeable that a consumer would suffer physical injury from merely observing a foreign object and reacting to it. The court distinguished this case from prior 'foreign object' cases, all of which involved some ingestion of the unwholesome food. To avoid imposing 'virtually unlimited liability,' the court established a clear ingestion requirement for this specific type of claim.



Analysis:

This decision carves out a specific 'ingestion requirement' for tort claims involving foreign objects in food, distinguishing them from the broader 'impact rule' doctrine governing negligent infliction of emotional distress. By grounding the rule in foreseeability, the court created a bright-line test that limits the scope of liability for food manufacturers and retailers. This precedent prevents recovery for claims based solely on the psychological or physical reaction to the sight of a contaminated product, thereby barring a potentially wide range of lawsuits. The ruling clarifies that in this context, the 'impact' necessary for a claim is consumption of the product itself.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Doyle v. Pillsbury Co. (1985) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Doyle v. Pillsbury Co.