Goldman v. Food Lion, Inc., 95-1877

• Citation: 99 F.3d 1129
• Decision Date: 26 September 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-1877,95-1880,95-1877
• Parties: NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Marion G. GOLDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. Marion G. GOLDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. . Argued:
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

Page 1129

99 F.3d 1129

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Marion G. GOLDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.

Marion G. GOLDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-1877, 95-1880.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: September 26, 1996

Decided: October 31, 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.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

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, which imposes liability on the retailer of a food product only for matter which is foreign and deleterious, and thereby causes injury to a customer. Virginia law does not render a retailer strictly liable for injuries caused by its food products.

[Emphasis added]. We believe that this argument, however, misconstrues Virginia law. It also misconstrues the magistrate judge's ruling.

The Uniform Commercial Code's imposition of warranty liability includes an aspect of strictness in that no showing of fault is required to prove a breach of warranty. This is made explicit by the language of the Code, the applicable sections of which provide:

(1) [A] warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.... (2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as ... pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and ... are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.

Va.Code § 8.2-314; cf. Brockett v....