Kassouf v. Lee Bros., Inc.
26 Cal. Rptr. 276, 209 Cal. App. 2d 568, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1716 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Contributory negligence is not a defense to a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness in cases involving the sale of contaminated food products, for which liability is absolute.
Facts:
- Mrs. Kassouf purchased a Hershey 'Mr. Goodbar' chocolate bar from Lee Bros. Market.
- Upon returning home, she sat in a well-lit room and began to read a newspaper.
- While reading, she reached for the candy bar without looking, opened one end of the wrapper, and broke off pieces to eat.
- From the first bite, Kassouf noticed the bar 'didn’t taste just right,' but she attributed this to having not eaten all day and continued to consume it.
- After eating about one-third of the bar, she bit into what she described as a 'mushy worm.'
- Upon inspection, she discovered the candy bar was covered with worms and webbing.
- As a result of ingesting the contaminated candy, Kassouf became ill and subsequently developed chronic ulcerative colitis.
Procedural Posture:
- Kassouf (Plaintiff) sued Lee Bros. Market (seller) and the candy's manufacturer (Defendants) in a state trial court.
- Before trial, Kassouf dismissed all her claims except for those based on breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability.
- Defendants pleaded general denials and the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.
- The trial court refused to give the jury instructions requested by the defendants regarding the plaintiff's duty to exercise care for her own safety.
- The jury returned a verdict of $25,000 for Kassouf against both defendants.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.
- The defendants (Appellants) appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court, challenging the trial court's refusal to give the requested jury instructions on contributory negligence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is contributory negligence a valid defense to a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness in a case involving contaminated food products?
Opinions:
Majority - Devine, J.
No, contributory negligence is not a defense in an action for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for food products. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's action was not based on negligence, but on the breach of the implied warranty of fitness provided under Civil Code § 1735. This statute imposes absolute liability on sellers of food, regardless of negligence. The court held that contributory negligence is generally a defense only to actions grounded in negligence. Allowing it as a defense in a warranty case would improperly derogate from the warranty, changing it from an affirmation that the food is fit for human consumption to one that it is only fit to be consumed by a person exercising ordinary care for their own protection. The court also noted that modern manufacturing and packaging have removed any responsibility a purchaser might have had to inspect packaged food before eating.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strict liability nature of implied warranty claims for food products in California, clearly distinguishing them from negligence claims. By rejecting contributory negligence as a defense, the court significantly strengthens consumer protection and places the full burden of ensuring food safety on manufacturers and sellers. This precedent limits the defenses available to defendants in contaminated food cases, focusing the legal inquiry solely on whether the food was unfit and caused harm, rather than on the consumer's conduct. The ruling reinforces the principle that while some warranty actions may 'sound in tort,' they do not automatically incorporate all traditional tort defenses.
