Samson v. Riesing
14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 618, 215 N.W.2d 662, 62 Wis. 2d 698 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For claims of negligence, implied warranty, or negligence per se against members of an unincorporated, non-commercial association, a plaintiff must prove which specific member breached a duty of care. The doctrines of res ipsa loquitur, implied warranty under the UCC for 'merchants', and negligence per se under commercial food safety statutes do not apply to occasional, non-commercial sellers of food.
Facts:
- The Wauwatosa Band Mothers, an unincorporated association, organized a luncheon to raise funds for the local high school band.
- Eleven members of the group participated in preparing turkey salad for the luncheon.
- Nine different women from the group each cooked one of the nine turkeys at their own homes.
- All eleven women then gathered to jointly prepare the final turkey salad.
- Pearl Samson purchased and consumed the turkey salad at the fundraising luncheon.
- Subsequently, Samson contracted salmonella poisoning from the contaminated turkey salad.
- It was established that salmonella contamination occurs only if food is improperly cooked or contaminated after cooking.
Procedural Posture:
- Pearl Samson sued the eleven members of the Wauwatosa Band Mothers in a Wisconsin trial court.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' evidence at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court judge granted the motion, dismissing the case before it could be decided by the jury.
- Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a plaintiff who contracted food poisoning from food prepared and sold at a fundraiser by a non-commercial, unincorporated association hold the members liable under theories of res ipsa loquitur, implied warranty, or negligence per se when the specific individual responsible for the contamination cannot be identified?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, J.
No. A plaintiff cannot hold members of a non-commercial group liable for food poisoning when the specific tortfeasor cannot be identified, as the necessary elements for liability under key legal theories are not met. The court rejected the plaintiffs' negligence claim based on res ipsa loquitur because the element of 'exclusive control' was not satisfied; while negligence was likely present, it could not be attributed to any single defendant or the group collectively, as no individual had exclusive control over the entire food preparation process. The court dismissed the implied warranty claim because the Wauwatosa Band Mothers were not 'merchants' as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code, which limits such warranties to persons who deal in goods of that kind or hold themselves out as having special skill. Finally, the court found the state's pure food statute did not apply, precluding a claim for negligence per se, because the legislature intended the statute to regulate commercial food businesses, not occasional, non-commercial fundraising activities.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of liability for individuals participating in informal, non-commercial group activities like fundraisers. It reinforces the traditional tort requirement that a plaintiff must identify and prove negligence by a specific defendant, showing that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot bridge the gap in proof when multiple individuals had access to the instrumentality of harm. By narrowly construing the UCC's definition of 'merchant' and the applicability of food safety statutes, the court protects volunteers and charitable organizations from the stricter liability standards imposed on commercial enterprises, thereby reducing a potential deterrent to community and volunteer activities.
