Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.
6 Cal. 2d 674, 1936 Cal. LEXIS 572, 59 P.2d 144 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A food provider does not breach the implied warranty of fitness for human consumption, nor are they negligent, for injuries caused by a substance that is natural to the food served, as the consumer should reasonably anticipate the presence of such substances.
Facts:
- On December 17, 1932, a plaintiff entered a restaurant operated by Ingersoll Candy Company and John G. Beck.
- The plaintiff purchased and paid for a chicken pie, which was served to him by a restaurant employee.
- The plaintiff ate the chicken pie while seated at a table in the restaurant.
- The chicken pie contained a sharp fragment of chicken bone.
- The plaintiff unknowingly swallowed the fragment of chicken bone and was severely injured as a result.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a complaint against Ingersoll Candy Company and John G. Beck in the trial court, alleging causes of action for breach of implied warranty and negligence.
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.
- Following the sustained demurrer, the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the judgment of dismissal to the Supreme Court of California.
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 restaurant breach the implied warranty of fitness for human consumption or act negligently when a customer is injured by a bone that is natural to the type of food served?
Opinions:
Majority - Curtis, J.
No, a restaurant does not breach the implied warranty of fitness nor act negligently by serving food containing a substance natural to that food. The court first established that serving food in a restaurant is a sale, not merely a service, and is therefore subject to an implied warranty that the food is 'reasonably fit' for human consumption under the Uniform Sales Act. However, this warranty does not require the food to be perfect. The court reasoned that bones are natural to meat dishes like chicken pie, and a consumer should reasonably anticipate their potential presence. Distinguishing this from cases involving foreign substances like glass or nails, the court held that a bone natural to the type of meat served does not render the food unfit. Similarly, because a customer cannot reasonably expect a perfectly boneless pie, the restaurant's failure to remove every bone does not constitute a lack of due care or negligence.
Analysis:
This case establishes the influential 'foreign-natural' distinction in product liability law concerning food. It shields food providers from liability for injuries caused by ingredients or components that are a natural part of the food product, such as bones in meat or fish. This decision significantly limits the scope of a restaurant's implied warranty and duty of care, placing a burden on the consumer to anticipate and guard against harm from such natural substances. While many jurisdictions have since moved toward a more plaintiff-friendly 'reasonable expectation' test, the foreign-natural doctrine established here remains a foundational and historically significant rule in this area of law.
