Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court
1 Cal. 4th 617, 822 P.2d 1292, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 145 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A restaurant may be liable in negligence if a patron is injured by a substance that is natural to the food served, but not for breach of implied warranty or strict liability. While a natural substance might be reasonably expected, which precludes warranty and strict liability claims, the restaurant still has a duty to exercise due care in food preparation.
Facts:
- Jack A. Clark was a customer at the Mexicali Rose restaurant.
- Clark ordered a chicken enchilada.
- While eating the enchilada, Clark swallowed a one-inch chicken bone that was contained within the dish.
- As a result of swallowing the bone, Clark sustained throat injuries.
- Clark also alleged that after the injury occurred, the restaurant staff initially refused to obtain medical assistance for him.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack A. Clark sued Mexicali Rose in a state trial court, alleging negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability.
- The defendant, Mexicali Rose, filed a demurrer to the complaint, asking the court to dismiss the case.
- The trial court overruled the defendant's demurrer, allowing the case to proceed.
- The defendant sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal issued the writ, directing the trial court to sustain the demurrer and dismiss all causes of action, citing its duty to follow the precedent set in Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to reconsider the Mix rule.
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 California law, may a restaurant patron recover for injuries caused by a substance natural to the food served, such as a chicken bone in a chicken enchilada, under theories of negligence, implied warranty, or strict liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Lucas, C. J.
Yes, but only under a negligence theory. The court rejects the strict 'foreign-natural' test from Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co., which completely barred liability for injuries from natural substances. Instead, it adopts a modified 'reasonable expectation' test. Under this new rule, if an injurious substance is natural to the food, the food cannot be deemed unfit or defective, thus barring claims for breach of implied warranty and strict liability because a consumer can reasonably expect such substances. However, the consumer's expectation does not negate the restaurant's duty of care, so the patron may sue for negligence if the presence of the substance resulted from the restaurant's failure to exercise due care in preparation. To the extent Mix precluded a negligence claim for natural substances, it is overruled.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
Yes, under all theories. The foreign-natural distinction is arbitrary and illogical because a natural object can be as harmful and unanticipated as a foreign one. The proper test for all claims—negligence, warranty, and strict liability—should be the reasonable expectation of the consumer. Whether a consumer should reasonably anticipate a bone in a highly processed dish like an enchilada is a question of fact for the jury. Public health policy, which underpins implied warranty and strict liability for food, should not differentiate based on the provenance of the harmful object.
Dissenting - Arabian, J.
Yes, under implied warranty. The majority's decision to revive the 'foreign-natural' distinction is at odds with fundamental fairness, public policy, and common sense. The rule is an 'antiquated and universally rejected precedent' that the vast majority of jurisdictions and legal commentators have abandoned in favor of the reasonable expectation test. The majority's new rule is absurd, as it would illogically prevent a warranty claim for finding a cow's eye in a hamburger because the eye is 'natural' to the product, while allowing a claim for a pebble. The law of implied warranty should protect consumers from any harmful substance they do not reasonably expect, regardless of whether it is natural or foreign.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modifies the long-standing 'foreign-natural' rule from Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co. by creating a hybrid liability framework. It abrogates the blanket immunity restaurants previously enjoyed for injuries from natural food substances by allowing a cause of action for negligence. However, it preserves the distinction to shield restaurants from the stricter standards of implied warranty and strict liability for such substances. This ruling creates a two-tiered system of liability based on the nature of the injurious object, balancing enhanced consumer protection with the practical realities of food preparation, and moving California law closer to, but not fully in line with, the modern 'reasonable expectation' standard adopted by most other jurisdictions.
Unlock the full brief for Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court