Bigelow v. Me. Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1912
• Citation: 85 A. 396,110 Me. 105
• Parties: BIGELOW v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

85 A. 396

110 Me. 105

BIGELOW

v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 20, 1912.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Somerset County, at Law.

Action by Catherine Bigelow against the Maine Central Railroad Company. Cause reported. Judgment for defendant.

Argued before WHITEHOUSE, C. J., and SAVAGE, SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, HALEY, and HANSON, JJ.

George H. Morse, of Portland, for plaintiff.

Forrest Goodwin, of Skowhegan, for defendant.

SPEAR, J. This is an action on the case brought by the plaintiff against the Maine Central Railroad Company to recover damages for injury to her health alleged to be caused by unwholesome and poisonous food served to her by the defendant in its dining car on the 25th day of February, 1910. The case comes to the law court on report. The food specifically complained of was canned asparagus served on toast, upon the consumption of which the plaintiff was soon after taken violently ill. Upon the assumption that the asparagus was poisonous, and was the proximate cause of the injuries of which the plaintiff suffered, is the defendant then, under the evidence in the case, liable? The undisputed evidence shows that the train crew on the dining car was experienced and intelligent. The conductor had had a long experience, and the chef had served 15 years as a cook. The can of asparagus from which the plaintiff was served was purchased by the commissary agent of the company, who was at the time handling the dining car service upon the Boston & Maine and Maine Central Railroads. He purchased this particular can with others either on February 15th or 17th of the month in which it was served of S. S. Pierce Company, Boston. It was a well-known brand, called "The Red Label Brand," and the only kind used upon the dining car. It was guaranteed by the S. S. Pierce Company as pure, under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. It was bought by S. S. Pierce Company of a dealer, who packed it expressly for that company. It was the highest grade, and bore the S. S. Pierce label. This company sells a quarter of a million of this label every year, and has done so for the last 10 or 15 years, and in that time no case of poisoning has arisen. After this can was purchased, it was properly kept for either eight or ten days until the morning of the accident, when it was placed in the custody of the officials of the dining car. This can, with others, was sealed. None had been opened. There was apparently no defect in the can or any other indications of imperfection. It was opened by the chef and prepared in the usual manner. The dining car was inspected that morning, and found perfect in every department. The chef in opening the can and preparing the asparagus discovered nothing in the appearance, taste, or odor that was not right. He says it appeared perfect in every particular; nor did the waiter who served it, or the conductor who saw it, notice anything. The plaintiff also testified that it looked all right and tasted all right; that there was nothing whatever to indicate any trouble with it. No evidence is offered tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant company in the purchasing, preparation, or serving of this asparagus. The allegation in the plaintiff's writ is that it was negligently prepared, unwholesome, and poisonous, and that the defendant ought to have known these facts.

The plaintiff, however, contends, admitting all these things to be true, that the strict rule of law which prevails in this class of cases will hold the defendant responsible. It is claimed, under the plaintiff's declaration, that it is not necessary for her to show privity of contract or negligence, and due care is no defense; that scienter need not be alleged, and, if alleged, need not be proved; negligence need not be alleged, and, if alleged, need not be proved; that the defendant from the nature of its business and calling was bound to know; that it impliedly represented and guaranteed that the food was wholesome and fit for consumption, and if it was not, and the party eating it was injured, it was liable. In other words, the plaintiff's contention is that the defendant in this class of cases is an insurer of the quality of the food product which it serves. We are unable to believe that this is a sound rule, when confined to the sale or use of canned goods.

It has been the boast of the common law that it was able to adjust itself to the inevitable vicissitudes and changes that occur in the development of industrial life, business methods, social progress, and scientific invention. Within the last century has appeared from time to time the discovery of devices that have revolutionized the methods and accomplishments of human effort. The subjugation of steam and control of electricity, and the consequent inventions for their practical use, have become instrumental in introducing an epoch in the history of science. Industrial, commercial, and financial projects have also assumed new forms and employed new methods. Yet, to the adjustment of all the new and varied relations arising from the adoption, application, and use of these new agencies and new methods, the principles of the common law have adapted themselves so aptly as to render almost imperceptible the radical transitions that have taken place.

Of little less importance than the appearance of the great achievements referred to is the establishment and development of the canning industry in this country and in other parts of the world. It may be said that the art of canning, if not invented within the last century, has, at least, assumed the vast proportions which it has now attained, within a comparatively few years. It involves a unique and peculiar method of distributing, for domestic and foreign use, almost every product known to the art of...