Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc.
35 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1074, 431 So. 2d 975, 1983 Ala. LEXIS 4111 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 'reasonable expectation' test for breach of implied warranty of merchantability for food products, the presence of a substance natural to the food does not render it defective or unmerchantable if the consumer should have reasonably expected its presence, a determination that may be made by the court as a matter of law.
Facts:
- In May 1980, Inez Haddox and her three-year-old son, Rodney Haddox, dined at Morrison's Cafeteria.
- Mrs. Haddox ordered a portion of Fish Almondine, which was made from Spanish Mackerel fillet, for her son.
- Morrison's did not advertise the fish as boneless and instructed employees not to state that it was.
- After Mrs. Haddox cut the fish into small pieces for Rodney, he choked on the first bite.
- At the hospital, a one-centimeter fishbone was discovered lodged in Rodney's tonsil and was removed.
- The fish fillets were machine-processed by a supplier, Pinellas Seafood Co., a method that makes it impossible to prevent the occasional presence of small bones.
- Government regulations for fish fillets allow for the presence of small bones.
Procedural Posture:
- Inez Haddox sued Morrison's Cafeteria and its supplier, Pinellas Seafood Co., in an Alabama trial court on behalf of her son, Rodney.
- Morrison's filed a cross-claim against Pinellas.
- The jury at the trial court returned a verdict in favor of Haddox against Morrison's for $6,000.78, and in favor of Pinellas on the cross-claim.
- The trial court denied Morrison's motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) and a new trial.
- Morrison's, as appellant, appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Morrison's, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
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 the presence of a one-centimeter fishbone in a fish fillet served at a restaurant breach the implied warranty of merchantability or render the fish defective and unreasonably dangerous under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Shores, J.
No. The presence of a one-centimeter fishbone in a fish fillet does not breach the implied warranty of merchantability or render the product unreasonably dangerous. The court adopted the 'reasonable expectation' test, which asks what a consumer is reasonably justified in expecting to find in a food product as served. While this is often a jury question, some cases present facts where the court can decide as a matter of law. Given that it is common knowledge fish have bones, government regulations permit small bones in fillets, and it is commercially impractical to remove every bone, a consumer should reasonably anticipate the possibility of finding a small bone in a fish fillet. Therefore, the fish served to Haddox was not defective or unmerchantable as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Faulkner, J.
Yes. The dissenting justice would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, which upheld the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff. This implies a belief that the question of what a consumer could reasonably expect was a matter of fact for the jury to decide, and their verdict should not have been disturbed.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally adopting the 'reasonable expectation' test in Alabama for product liability claims involving food, moving away from the more rigid 'foreign-natural' test. The decision tempers the plaintiff-friendly nature of this test by establishing that courts can determine what a consumer should 'reasonably expect' as a matter of law, rather than always submitting the question to a jury. This precedent protects food producers and sellers from liability for injuries caused by small, naturally occurring elements that are impractical to remove, preventing them from becoming de facto insurers of their products.
