Schafer v. JLC Food Systems, Inc.
2005 Minn. LEXIS 216, 695 N.W.2d 570, 2005 WL 984474 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may establish a prima facie claim for a defective food product using circumstantial evidence, even without identifying the specific harm-causing object, if the injury is of a kind that would ordinarily occur only because of a product defect. Minnesota law evaluates such claims under the 'reasonable expectation' test, which considers whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find the injury-causing substance in the food product.
Facts:
- On January 27, 2001, Karen Schafer went to a Perkins Restaurant in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
- Schafer ordered a pumpkin muffin, unwrapped it, and ate a piece with her fork.
- Upon swallowing the first bite, she immediately felt a sharp pain and a choking sensation in her throat.
- Schafer went directly to a hospital emergency room, and her friend notified a Perkins employee about the incident before they left.
- At the hospital, a doctor informed Schafer that she had a cut on her throat but did not observe any foreign object.
- Two days later, Schafer returned to the emergency room, was diagnosed with a throat infection, and was hospitalized for three days.
- The remainder of the muffin was not saved, and Schafer could not identify the specific object that injured her, though she speculated it was something 'sharp and hard.'
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Schafer sued JLC Food Systems, Inc. (Perkins) in Minnesota district court (trial court) for negligence.
- Perkins filed a third-party claim against Foxtail Foods, the muffin mix manufacturer.
- Perkins and Foxtail moved for summary judgment, arguing Schafer could not identify the object that injured her.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Perkins and Foxtail.
- Schafer, as appellant, appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
- Schafer, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 restaurant customer establish a prima facie claim of negligence against the restaurant without identifying the specific object in a food product that allegedly caused her injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Page, J.
Yes, a restaurant customer can establish a prima facie claim of negligence without identifying the specific object that caused the injury. The court expressly adopts the 'reasonable expectation' test for defective food product claims, rejecting the outdated 'foreign-natural' test. Under the reasonable expectation standard, a food product is defective if it contains a harm-causing ingredient that a reasonable consumer would not expect to find. The court holds that a plaintiff can use circumstantial evidence to prove a defect, even if the specific object is unknown. It overrules the precedent set in Kneibel, which required identification of the object, finding that rule 'unduly restrictive.' By applying a new three-part test for circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that a jury could reasonably infer that Schafer's injury resulted from a defect in the muffin, making summary judgment improper.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters products liability law in Minnesota regarding defective food products. By formally adopting the 'reasonable expectation' test, the court aligns Minnesota with the majority of jurisdictions and the Restatement (Third) of Torts, focusing the inquiry on consumer expectations rather than the arbitrary origin of the harmful substance. More importantly, the case establishes a new, clear framework allowing plaintiffs to survive summary judgment using circumstantial evidence when the specific defect cannot be identified. This lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in such cases and makes it more difficult for defendants to get these claims dismissed at an early stage.
