Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps
Decision Date | 22 July 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 7815.,7815. |
Citation | 164 S.W.2d 828 |
Parties | JACOB E. DECKER & SONS, Inc., v. CAPPS et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
John P. Doyle, of Chicago, Ill., and Richard L. Arnold, William H. Arnold, and William H. Arnold, Jr., all of Texarkana, Ark., for plaintiffs in error.
Perry R. Meredith, of Longview, Florence & Florence, of Gilmer, Russell Surles, of Tyler, and E. M. Dodson, of Marlin, for defendants in error.
This suit involves the question of the liability of a manufacturer of food products to the consumer thereof for damages for personal injuries sustained by him as the result of the unwholesomeness of such food.
Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc., manufactured and sold certain sausage, advertised as being suitable for human consumption in the summer time, under the trade name of "Cervalet," which sausage was wrapped in a cellophane package. The sausage in question was sold on March 16, 1939, by Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc., to a retail merchant in Texas for resale, and was purchased by C. K. Capps on March 19, 1939. It was consumed immediately by members of Capps' family, and as a result one of the children died and other members of the family were made seriously ill. Mrs. Capps, after the death of her husband from other causes, brought suit for herself for damages for the injuries sustained by her as a result of the eating of the contaminated sausage. She also brought two other suits as next friend for her two surviving minor children for damages for the injuries suffered by them. The three suits were tried together. The jury found that at the time the sausage in question was processed and manufactured it was contaminated and poisonous to such an extent as to be unfit for human consumption; and that the eating thereof by the members of Capps' family proximately resulted in their serious illness. The jury further found, however, that Decker & Sons did not fail to properly inspect the sausage, and that the contaminated and poisonous condition of the sausage at the time it was manufactured was not due to the negligence of Decker & Sons in the manufacture and processing thereof, and that the illness suffered by Capps' family from the eating of the sausage was the result of an unavoidable accident. Judgments in favor of the plaintiffs for damages sustained by them were affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 144 S.W.2d 404.
The jury's verdict, as we understand it, amounts to a finding that the sausage, at the time it was processed and manufactured by Decker & Sons, was so contaminated and poisonous as to be unfit for human consumption and the members of Capps' family were seriously injured by the eating thereof; but Decker & Sons was not negligent in the manufacture of the sausage. The finding of the jury that the injuries suffered by plaintiffs were the result of an unavoidable accident amounted to nothing more than a finding that there was no negligence on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendant.
Under the foregoing facts, the question to be determined is whether a nonnegligent manufacturer, who processes and sells contaminated food to a retailer for resale for human consumption, is liable to the consumer for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the eating of such food. So far as we have been able to ascertain, this exact question has not heretofore been before this Court. While there is quite a contrariety of opinion on the subject in other jurisdictions, there is no dearth of authorities. The question has been the subject of many annotations in the American Law Reports, as well as numerous articles in law reviews. 17 A.L.R. 709; 39 A.L.R. 1000; 63 A.L.R. 349; 88 A.L.R. 534; 105 A.L.R. 1511; 111 A.L.R. 1251; Jeanblanc, "Manufacturer's Liability to Persons Other Than Their Immediate Vendees," 24 Va.L. Rev. 134-158; Lessler, "Implied Warranty of Quality in Sales of Food," 14 Conn.B. J. 45-63; Perkins, "Unwholesome Food as a Source of Liability," 5 Iowa L.B. 6-35, 86-111; Note, 12 Neb.L.B. 163-175; Note, 21 Minn.L.Rev. 315-325.
After having considered the matter most carefully, we have reached the conclusion that the manufacturer is liable for the injuries sustained by the consumers of the products in question. We think the manufacturer is liable in such a case under an implied warranty imposed by operation of law as a matter of public policy. We recognize that the authorities are by no means uniform, but we believe the better reasoning supports the rule which holds the manufacturer liable. Liability in such case is not based on negligence, nor on a breach of the usual implied contractual warranty, but on the broad principle of the public policy to protect human health and life. It is a well-known fact that articles of food are manufactured and placed in the channels of commerce, with the intention that they shall pass from hand to hand until they are finally used by some remote consumer. It is usually impracticable, if not impossible, for the ultimate consumer to analyze the food and ascertain whether or not it is suitable for human consumption. Since it has been packed and placed on the market as a food for human consumption, and marked as such, the purchaser usually eats it or causes it to be served to his family without the precaution of having it analyzed by a technician to ascertain whether or not it is suitable for human consumption. In fact, in most instances the only satisfactory examination that could be made would be only at the time and place of the processing of the food. It seems to be the rule that where food products sold for human consumption are unfit for that purpose, there is such an utter failure of the purpose for which the food is sold, and the consequences of eating unsound food are so disastrous to human health and life, that the law imposes a warranty of purity in favor of the ultimate consumer as a matter of public policy.
Since very early times the common law has applied more stringent rules to sales of food than to sales of other merchandise. It has long been a well-established rule that in sales of food for domestic use there is an implied warranty that it is wholesome and fit for human consumption. Race v. Krum, 222 N.Y. 410, 118 N.E. 853, L.R.A.1918F, 1172; Wiedeman v. Keller, 171 Ill. 93, 49 N.E. 210; Houston Cotton Oil Co. v. Trammell, Tex.Civ.App., 72 S.W. 244; 55 C.J. 764; 24 R.C.L. 195; 37 Tex. Jur. 299. A majority of the American courts that have followed this holding have not based such warranty upon an implied term in the contract between buyer and seller, nor upon any reliance by the buyer on the representation of the seller, but have imposed it as a matter of public policy in order to discourage the sale of unwholesome food. The Supreme Court of Michigan has stated the reason for the rule in Hoover v. Peters, 1869, 18 Mich. 51, as follows:
In Wiedeman v. Keller, 1897, 171 Ill. 93, 49 N.E. 210, 211, the Supreme Court of Illinois adopted the same view and pointed out the distinction between sales of food and other sales, saying:
In 1918 the New York Court of Appeals in Race v. Krum, supra [222 N.Y. 410, 118 N.E. 854, L.R.A.1918F, 1172], reaffirmed the principle in the following language:
In Catani v. Swift and Company, 251 Pa. 52, 95 A. 931, L.R.A.1917B, pages 1272, 1273, it was said: "The general rule is that, where the sale of articles of food is for immediate consumption, there is an implied warranty that the food is wholesome and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Pruitt
...a demand for the product by mass advertising and then evade liability with the shield of privity. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps, 139 Tex. 609, 164 S.W.2d 828, 142 A.L.R. 1479 (1942). The scope of responsibility envisioned by Henningsen is still in conflict. The battle has been waged......
-
Putman v. Erie City Manufacturing Company
...into the field of products liability.2 Once again state guidelines are hard to find and follow. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps, 1942, 139 Tex. 609, 164 S.W.2d 828, 142 A.L.R. 1479, a case of national importance, firmly settled the law of Texas that in a food case privity of contract ......
-
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
...P.2d at page 412. The concept was expressed in a practical way by the Supreme Court of Texas in Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps, 139 Tex. 609, 164 S.W.2d 828, 833, 142 A.L.R. 1479 (1942): 'In fact, the manufacturer's interest in the product is not terminated when he has sold it to the......
-
Hill v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.
...the consumer's inability to protect himself adequately from defectively manufactured goods, see Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps, 139 Tex. 609, 164 S.W.2d 828, 142 A.L.R. 1479 (1942); the implied assurance on the part of the seller that his goods are safe, see State Farm Mut. Auto Ins.......