Estate of Stanley Pinkham v. Cargill, Inc.
55 A. 3d 1, 2012 ME 85 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For strict liability claims involving defective food products, Maine adopts the 'reasonable expectation' test, which holds a seller liable for injuries caused by a substance a consumer would not reasonably expect to find in the product, regardless of whether the substance is natural or foreign to the food.
Facts:
- On or about August 23, 2004, Stanley Pinkham consumed a hot turkey sandwich made with a boneless turkey product manufactured by Cargill, Inc.
- The kitchen staff at the restaurant where Pinkham worked had occasionally found pieces of bone in Cargill's boneless turkey product.
- While or immediately after eating the sandwich, Pinkham experienced sudden, severe abdominal pain and was taken to the hospital.
- Doctors diagnosed Pinkham with a perforated esophagus.
- During an endoscopy, Dr. Scott Stern discovered a small food bolus near the perforation containing fragments of bony or cartilaginous material measuring one to two millimeters.
- Dr. Stern testified that he believed the injury was a 'perforation secondary to a foreign body' and that such an injury would likely require an additional factor like a foreign body, aggressive retching, or vomiting, of which there was no evidence of the latter two.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Stanley Pinkham filed a complaint against Cargill, Inc. in the Maine Superior Court (trial court) under the state's strict liability statute.
- Cargill filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the Estate could not prove the turkey was defective.
- The Estate opposed the motion, but the Superior Court excluded some of its proffered evidence as inadmissible hearsay.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Cargill, finding that as a matter of law, small bone fragments were not a defect.
- The Estate of Stanley Pinkham, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (highest court).
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 Maine's strict liability statute, does a plaintiff create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a 'boneless' turkey product is defective when there is evidence it contained bone fragments that caused an esophageal perforation, thereby making summary judgment for the manufacturer improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Jabar, J.
Yes. A plaintiff creates a genuine issue of material fact for trial, making summary judgment improper, by presenting evidence from which a jury could conclude that a food product was defective. The court formally adopts the 'reasonable expectation' test for strict liability claims involving food products, displacing the older 'foreign-natural' doctrine. Under this test, a product is defective if it contains a substance, natural or not, that a consumer would not reasonably expect to find. Whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find a bone fragment capable of causing an esophageal perforation in a product labeled 'boneless' is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court. The court also adopts the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 3, which permits an inference of defect when an incident is of a kind that ordinarily occurs due to a defect and was not solely the result of other causes. Here, expert testimony pointing to a 'foreign body' as the cause, coupled with evidence that bones were previously found in the product, is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment and allow a jury to decide the case.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the 'reasonable expectation' test as the standard for defective food product liability in Maine, aligning the state with the modern trend and making it easier for plaintiffs to bring such claims. By rejecting the more restrictive 'foreign-natural' doctrine, the court shifts the focus from the nature of the harmful substance to the expectations of the consumer. Furthermore, the adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 3 provides plaintiffs with a path to prove their case through circumstantial evidence, which is crucial in situations where the specific defect is destroyed or lost during the incident, thereby lowering the evidentiary burden at the summary judgment stage.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Estate of Stanley Pinkham v. Cargill, Inc. (2012)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"