Doyle v. Pillsbury Co.
| Decision Date | 29 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 65249,65249 |
| Citation | 476 So.2d 1271,10 Fla. L. Weekly 424 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 424, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 10,675 Gerald DOYLE and Marie Doyle, Petitioners, v. The PILLSBURY COMPANY, Green Giant Company, and Publix Super Markets, Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert M. Kahn and Jeffrey D. Mickelson of Kahn & Gutter, Ft. Lauderdale, for petitioners.
Edmund T. Henry, III and Dorian S. Denburg of Shutts & Bowen, Miami, for respondents.
We have for review Doyle v. Pillsbury Co., 447 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which certified the following question to be of great public importance:
SHOULD FLORIDA ABROGATE THE "IMPACT RULE" AND ALLOW RECOVERY FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL IMPACT UPON THE PLAINTIFF?
Id. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The facts of this case do not warrant a full answer to the certified question.
After her husband opened a can of peas, Marie Doyle looked into the can and observed a large insect floating on the surface of the contents of the can. She jumped back in alarm, fell over a chair, and suffered physical injuries. Mr. and Mrs. Doyle filed an action to recover damages from Pillsbury, Green Giant, and Publix on negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty grounds. The trial court granted Pillsbury's summary judgment motion (not at issue in this case) and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Green Giant and Publix, after finding that the impact rule barred the Doyles' cause of action. The district court affirmed the summary judgment on the authority of Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So.2d 593 (Fla.1974).
Claims for injuries caused by foreign objects in food or drink led to the adoption of liability predicated on an implied warranty of fitness without regard to privity where a consumer suffers injury from unwholesome food. This Court first applied the breach of implied warranty theory to food manufacturers or packers, Blanton v. Cudahy Packing Co., 154 Fla. 872, 19 So.2d 313 (1944), to restaurants, Cliett v. Lauderdale Biltmore Corp., 39 So.2d 476 (Fla.1949), and to retailers of food products, Sencer v. Carl's Markets, Inc., 45 So.2d 671 (Fla.1950). Even with these liberalized rules to promote recovery for physical and psychic injury, the foreign object cases all involve some ingestion of a portion of the food or drink product. See, e.g., Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Macurda, 93 So.2d 860 (Fla.1957) (); Way v. Tampa Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 So.2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (). To this extent Florida courts have required an "impact."
This ingestion requirement is grounded upon foreseeability rather than the impact rule. * The public has become accustomed to believing in and relying on the fact that packaged foods are fit for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hagan, 98-1463.
...in the case of contaminated food, he explained the impact requirement is met if a plaintiff ingests the food, citing Doyle v. Pillsbury Company, 476 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1985). In Doyle, the plaintiff was denied recovery because, although she observed a large insect floating on the surface of a ......
-
King v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
...45 So.2d 188 (Fla.1950) (dictum), it is very clear that there is no such exception under the present law of our state. Doyle v. Pillsbury Co., 476 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1985); Sguros v. Biscayne Recreation Dev. Co., 528 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 880 (Fla.1988); Davis ......
-
Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC.
...that itself is a freestanding tort apart from any emotional injury." 696 So.2d at 708 (quoting Kush, 616 So.2d at 415). And, of course, Doyle recognized a cause of action based on the ingestion of a contaminated food since ingestion itself constitutes an impact. Consistent with our opinions......
-
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox
...of emotional distress claims, "the ingestion requirement is grounded on foreseeability rather than the impact rule." Doyle v. The Pillsbury Co., 476 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1985) (pending on rehearing) (recovery denied on basis of lack of foreseeability where plaintiff, upon opening a can of peas, ......
-
Negligence cases
...lack of an accompanying physical injury” based on the foreseeability of resulting emotional distress); see also Doyle v. Pillsbury Co. , 476 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 1985) (noting that “the foreign object cases all involve some ingestion of a portion of the food or drink product,” which is co......
-
Negligent infliction of emotional distress: where are we now?
...foreseeably flows from an emotional shock, the court is reluctant to expand the impact rule. For example, in Doyle v. Pillsbury Co., 476 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1985), the court refused to expand the doctrine to cases where the claimant was startled by something in her food. In Doyle, the plainti......