Campbell v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
Decision Date | 20 March 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 2298.,2298. |
Citation | 149 A.2d 420 |
Parties | Marlon CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., a corporation, Appellee. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Cornelius H. Doherty, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Appellant purchased a wedge of cheese at one of appellee's stores and a few days later while preparing the evening meal she was slicing pieces from the cheese and eating them. She noticed that one piece did not taste right and then observed a portion of a fly embedded in the cheese. She had cut down through the fly and had eaten a part of it. She continued to prepare the meal, but did not eat any of it because after about ten minutes she did not feel well, and shortly thereafter became nauseated and vomited and was ill to some degree for several weeks. She saw a doctor the day after eating the cheese and he treated her over a period of five weeks. The doctor did not have his record at trial, but testified that he "would probably" have called her illness toxic gastritis. A jury returned a verdict in appellant's favor but on motion of appellee the trial court set aside the verdict and directed entry of judgment for appellee.
The only question before us is whether appellant's evidence, viewed most favorably to her, as above summarized, warranted submission of her case to the jury. If it did then it was error to grant judgment n. o. v.
Appellee urges that the action of the trial court was correct, because, it says, there was no evidence to prove a causal connection between the consumption of a portion of a fly in the cheese and the stomach disturbance. It is true that the doctor did not testify that the ingestion of the fly caused or could have caused appellant's illness. In many situations where there is no direct evidence of contamination, medical proof is required to show a causal connection between the alleged contamination and the injury. For example, see Lohse v. Coffey, D.C.Mun.App., 32 A. 2d 258. But here there was direct and positive testimony that there was a dead fly embedded in the cheese. Medical testimony was not needed to establish that a piece of cheese with a fly embedded in it is not wholesome food. And where, as here, illness follows almost immediately after ingestion of unwholesome food or drink, it is generally held that a jury may properly infer that the illness was caused by the unwholesome food or drink just consumed. See Fisher v. Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 66 App.D.C. 7, 84 F.2d 261, 105 A.L.R. 1034; Crystal Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cathey, 83 Ariz. 163, 317 P.2d 1094; Patargias v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 332 Ill.App. 117, 74 N.E.2d 162; Ferguson v. Parr, La.App., 85 So.2d 117; Coca-Cola Bottling Works v. Catron, 186 Md. 156, 46 A.2d 303; Migliozzi v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 51 N.J.Super. 313, 144 A.2d 1; Smith v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 152 Pa.Super. 445, 33 A.2d 488; Oklahoma...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gay v. A & P Food Stores
...in the food that plaintiff is in the process of eating, be it a fly, a worm or other repulsive organism. (Campbell v. Safeway Stores, D.C.Mun.App., 149 A.2d 420, at page 422, and cases there cited; Shaw v. Tague, 257 N.Y. 193, 177 N.E. 417; and see also, Cernes v. Pittsburg Coca Cola Bottli......
-
Gilper v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc.
...jury could properly have concluded that her illness resulted from physical rather than psychological causes. Campbell v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.Mun. App., 149 A.2d 420 (1959), and cases cited therein. We agree that medical testimony would be highly desirable on such an issue, but on this......
-
SOWELL v. HYATT CORP., 91-CV-1291
...left standing the decisions in Hamilton v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Washington, supra note 2, 132 A.2d at 503; Campbell v. Safeway Stores, Inc., supra note 2, 149 A.2d at 422; Harrison v. Canada Dry Corp., supra note 2, 245 A.2d at 643; and Gilper v. Kiamesha Concord Inc., supra note 2, 3......
-
China Doll Restaurant, Inc. v. MacDonald
...infer such negligence. This she failed to do and there was no case for jury consideration. Reversed. 1. Campbell v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C. Mun.App., 149 A.2d 420; Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works v. Kelly, D.C. Mun.App. 40 A.2d 2. Picard v. Smith, 59 App.D.C. 291, 40 F.2d 803; Lohse ......