Yong Cha Hong v. Marriott Corp.
656 F. Supp. 445, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2055, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 83 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The test for determining a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability for food is not whether the offending substance is foreign or natural to the food, but rather what a consumer would reasonably expect to find in the prepared product.
Facts:
- Yong Cha Hong purchased a piece of take-out fried chicken (a wing) from a Roy Rogers Family Restaurant, operated by Marriott Corp.
- The raw chicken for the restaurant was supplied by Gold Kist.
- While eating the chicken wing, Hong bit into an object that she perceived to be a worm.
- The encounter caused Hong to suffer significant physical and emotional distress.
- A subsequent expert analysis concluded the object was not a worm but was likely a part of the chicken's anatomy, such as its trachea or aorta.
Procedural Posture:
- Yong Cha Hong (plaintiff) filed a complaint in a Maryland state court against Marriott Corp. and Gold Kist (defendants), alleging counts of negligence and breach of warranty.
- The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, a federal trial court, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the warranty count and later moved for summary judgment on the entire complaint.
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 the presence of a natural but unexpected part of an animal's anatomy, such as a trachea or aorta, in a prepared food product constitute a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability?
Opinions:
Majority - Smalkin, J.
Yes, the presence of a natural but unexpected part of an animal's anatomy in a prepared food product can constitute a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court rejected the older 'foreign/natural' test, which barred recovery if the injurious substance was natural to the food product (e.g., a chicken bone in a chicken dish). Instead, the court adopted the 'reasonable expectation' test, holding that liability hinges on whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find the object in that particular dish. The court reasoned that while a consumer might expect a fish bone in chowder, it is not clear that a consumer should reasonably expect to find a trachea or aorta in a piece of fast-food fried chicken. Because the reasonableness of the consumer's expectation is a question of fact, the issue must be decided by a jury, making summary judgment for the defendants inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its explicit adoption of the 'reasonable expectation' test over the more rigid 'foreign/natural' distinction in a food warranty case. This ruling reflects a modern trend in products liability law that is more favorable to consumers. By shifting the focus to consumer expectations, the decision makes it more likely that cases involving natural but unexpected contaminants in processed or restaurant foods will survive summary judgment and reach a jury. The ruling underscores that as food production becomes more industrialized, the law will adjust to protect consumer expectations of safety and fitness in prepared meals.
