Ward v. Morehead City Sea Food Co.
87 S.E. 958, 171 N.C. 33, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 2 (1916)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer of food products has a duty to exercise due care in its preparation and a subsequent duty to act as an ordinarily prudent person would to promptly warn consumers and retailers if it learns the product is dangerous after it has entered the market.
Facts:
- The defendant, a seafood packer, prepared and packed a lot of salt mullets.
- There was evidence of a thirty-six-hour delay in cleaning and packing the fish during the warm month of September.
- On September 18, 1914, the defendant shipped a portion of these mullets to W.S. White, a retail grocer.
- On the same day the fish were shipped, the defendant learned that fish from the same lot were making people sick.
- The following day, the defendant received a second notice that people in several localities had become ill from the fish, and later learned a person had died.
- After receiving the initial notice, the defendant waited twenty-four hours before mailing warning letters to its retailers; it did not send telegrams.
- The plaintiff's intestate purchased and ate some of the mullets from the retailer, W.S. White, and died as a result.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator for the deceased's estate sued the defendant seafood packer in a trial court.
- The complaint alleged three causes of action, including breach of implied warranty and two theories of negligence.
- A jury found that the defendant was negligent and that this negligence caused the death of the plaintiff's intestate.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the reviewing court.
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 food packer's failure to promptly notify its retailers to stop selling a product, after learning the product is dangerously contaminated and has caused illness, constitute negligence that is the proximate cause of a consumer's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Olaek, C. J.
Yes. A food packer's failure to promptly notify its retailers to stop selling a product after learning it is dangerously contaminated constitutes actionable negligence. The court reasoned that the defendant had a duty to protect the public from its product. This duty was breached in two ways: first, there was evidence of negligent preparation due to a significant delay in packing the fish in warm weather. More significantly, the defendant breached its post-sale duty of care. Upon learning that its product was dangerous, the defendant failed to do what an 'ordinarily prudent man' would have done by not immediately wiring retailers to stop the sale. Instead, it waited 24 hours to mail letters, and there was evidence this delay was the proximate cause of the intestate's death, as a prompt telegram could have saved his life.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that a manufacturer's duty of care extends beyond the point of sale, creating a post-sale duty to warn of dangers discovered after a product enters the stream of commerce. It holds manufacturers accountable not only for defects in production but also for their subsequent failure to take swift and effective remedial action. This precedent strengthens consumer protection in product liability law, particularly for food and other consumables, by requiring proactive measures like recalls or immediate warnings when a public health risk is identified.
Unlock the full brief for Ward v. Morehead City Sea Food Co.