Phillips v. Town of West Springfield
9 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 535, 540 N.E.2d 1331, 405 Mass. 411 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Liability for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability for an injury-causing substance in food is determined by what a consumer would reasonably expect to find in the food, not by whether the substance is natural or foreign to the food.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a high school senior, was served a meal in his school cafeteria.
- The meal consisted of mashed potatoes with bite-sized cubes of white turkey meat, gravy, and peas ladled on top.
- While eating, the plaintiff bit into one of the turkey cubes and felt something in his throat.
- He expelled a small, 1.5-inch hooked bone, which had caused an injury to his esophagus.
- As a result of the injury, the plaintiff was hospitalized for four days.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of warranty in the Superior Court (trial court).
- The case was heard by a judge in a bench trial (without a jury).
- The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendant, finding no breach of warranty.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the state's highest court) transferred the case for direct review on its own motion.
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 the 'reasonable expectations' test, rather than the 'foreign substance-natural substance' test, the proper standard for determining liability for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability when a consumer is injured by an object in food?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
Yes. The proper standard for determining liability for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability due to a substance in food is the 'reasonable expectations' test. The court rejects the outdated 'foreign substance-natural substance' test, which unfairly exonerates a seller from liability simply because the injury-causing substance was 'natural' to the food, like a bone in meat. This older test fails to focus on the consumer's justified expectations of safety. The reasonable expectations test is the appropriate standard because it aligns with the purpose of the warranty of merchantability, which is to protect consumers from products not fit for their ordinary purpose. The dispositive question is what the reasonable expectations of an ordinary consumer for that specific meal would be. Because the trial judge made conflicting findings of fact and rulings of law on this point, the case must be remanded for the trier of fact to determine the reasonable expectations of an ordinary high school student for the cafeteria meal served.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the 'reasonable expectations' test in Massachusetts for breach of warranty claims involving harmful substances in food, aligning the state with the modern majority rule. By rejecting the rigid 'foreign substance-natural substance' test, the court shifts the legal focus from the nature of the object to the consumer's perspective. This makes it more difficult for food sellers to escape liability simply by arguing that an object like a bone is 'natural.' Future cases will require a fact-intensive inquiry into the specific preparation and presentation of the food to determine what an ordinary consumer would objectively expect, increasing protection for consumers.
