99 F.3d 1129 (4th Cir. 1996), 95-1877, Goldman v. Food Lion, Inc.
|Docket Nº:||95-1877, 95-1880.|
|Citation:||99 F.3d 1129|
|Party Name:||Marion G. GOLDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. Marion G. GOLDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||October 31, 1996|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued: September 26, 1996
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. William T. Prince, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-870-2)
ARGUED: David Michael Young, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Henry Lewis Allen, Louis Bernard Fine, FINE, FINE, LEGUM & FINE, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert W. McFarland, Charles G. Meyer, III, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
In November 1993, Marion Goldman purchased a can of Food Lion brand peach halves at a Food Lion supermarket in Chesapeake, Virginia. When she ate the peaches, she bit down on a peach pit fragment, fracturing her lower denture and causing her additional injury.
In her complaint filed against Food Lion, Goldman alleged that in selling the can, Food Lion breached an implied warranty "of fitness for human consumption." The parties submitted the case to a magistrate judge to decide,inter alia, whether the sale of peach halves with a pit fragment in them violated §§ 8.2-314(2)(c) and (f) of the Virginia Code (Virginia's version of the Uniform Commercial Code). The magistrate judge found that the peach pit fragment included with pitted peach halves rendered the peaches unfit for human consumption. Finding that Goldman reasonably incurred $12,000 in medical expenses as a result of the injury, the magistrate judge rendered a verdict in her favor for $20,000.
On appeal, Food Lion contends principally that the magistrate judge applied the wrong standard to find a breach of warranty under Virginia law. It maintains,
The district court imposed a strict liability standard for injuries caused by food products to customers.... This ruling does not conform to Virginia law...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP