Mazetti v. Armour & Co.
1913 Wash. LEXIS 1760, 75 Wash. 622, 135 P. 633 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer of food products sold in original sealed packages impliedly warrants that the goods are wholesome and fit for consumption, and this warranty is available to all parties in the legitimate channels of trade, including retailers who suffer economic damages.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Mazetti and others operated a profitable restaurant in Seattle.
- Defendant Armour & Company manufactured and sold packaged food products, representing them to the public as wholesome and fit for consumption.
- On June 16, 1912, Mazetti purchased a sealed carton of cooked tongue manufactured by Armour & Company from a grocery company for resale to restaurant patrons.
- Mazetti relied on Armour & Company's reputation and representations of wholesomeness when making the purchase.
- Mazetti served a portion of the tongue to a patron, who became ill upon eating it.
- The tongue contained a foul, poisonous substance in the center, which was not discoverable until the package was opened and served.
- The patron publicly denounced the restaurant for serving poisonous food, which became widely known and caused significant damage to Mazetti's business reputation and profits.
Procedural Posture:
- Mazetti sued Armour & Company in a Washington state trial court for damages to their business.
- Armour & Company filed a demurrer, arguing that Mazetti's complaint failed to state a valid legal claim, primarily due to a lack of privity of contract.
- The trial court sustained Armour & Company's demurrer, dismissing the case against them.
- Mazetti, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Washington.
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 retailer, who suffers business losses after selling a manufacturer's unwholesome food product in its original sealed package, have a cause of action directly against the manufacturer despite the lack of contractual privity?
Opinions:
Majority - Chadwick, J.
Yes. A manufacturer of food products in sealed packages impliedly warrants their wholesomeness not just to the ultimate consumer, but to all who are damaged by their use in the legitimate channels of trade, including retailers who suffer economic loss. The court reasoned that the traditional rule requiring privity of contract is outdated and unjust in the context of modern food production. For sealed goods, neither the retailer nor the consumer can inspect the contents, making the doctrine of caveat emptor inapplicable. The manufacturer, who has sole control over the product's safety, should bear responsibility for defects. The court created a new exception to the privity rule based on 'the demands of social justice,' holding that a retailer who stakes their reputation on a manufacturer's product and is subsequently damaged has a direct right of recovery against that manufacturer to avoid a burdensome 'circumlocution of action' through the supply chain.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from the traditional requirement of privity of contract in product liability cases, particularly for food products. By extending the manufacturer's implied warranty to retailers for economic losses, the court expanded the scope of liability beyond just the ultimate consumer who suffers physical harm. This case helped pioneer the legal foundation for modern products liability law, which holds manufacturers accountable for the safety of their products to all foreseeable parties in the stream of commerce. It underscores a judicial shift towards protecting retailers and consumers in an era of mass-produced, pre-packaged goods where inspection is impossible.
