Ex parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc.
Citation | 431 So.2d 975 |
Parties | 35 UCC Rep.Serv. 1074 Ex parte MORRISON'S CAFETERIA OF MONTGOMERY, INC. (Re MORRISON'S CAFETERIA OF MONTGOMERY, INC. v. Inez HADDOX, Etc.) 81-886. |
Decision Date | 11 March 1983 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Robert C. Black of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, Montgomery, for Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc.
Dennis R. Bailey of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, Montgomery, for Pinellas Seafood Co., Inc.
Robert M. Alton, Jr., Montgomery, for respondents.
This case presents a question of first impression in this state. Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals following that court's affirmance of the trial court's judgment entered on a jury verdict totalling $6,000.78 against Morrison's for injuries sustained when Rodney Haddox, a minor, choked on a fishbone while dining at the restaurant.
The facts as found by the Court of Civil Appeals and by which we are bound are as follows:
An employee of Pinellas at the time of Rodney's injury testified that Pinellas used machines to fillet the Spanish Mackerel bought by Morrison's. Such machines are commonly used by other wholesale fish processors. Machine filleting strips the sides of the fish away from the backbone. Using this method it is impossible to prevent the occasional presence of small bones in the fillets. Government regulations allow for the presence of small bones in fillets. The employee stated that Morrison's had not been told that Pinellas's fillets were boneless. Approximately ninety-nine percent of the fillets which Pinellas produces are sold to Morrison's, and Pinellas is aware that Morrison's in turn sells the fillets to its customers. He further testified that in order for Pinellas or Morrison's to check for bones in the fillets they would have to cut them into tiny pieces. This would destroy the fillets.
Morrison's appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, citing as error: (1) the trial court's denial of Morrison's motions for a directed verdict and JNOV against Haddox on the implied warranty and AEMLD claims; and (2) the trial court's denial of Morrison's motions for a new trial based on alleged inconsistent verdicts as to Morrison's and Pinellas. Morrison's urged the Court of Civil Appeals to adopt the so-called "foreign-natural" rule and determine as a matter of law that a bone in a piece of fish does not breach the implied warranty of fitness.
A divided Court of Civil Appeals, in affirming the trial court's decision, rejected the "foreign-natural" rule in favor of the "reasonable expectation" test. Judge Holmes, dissenting in part, agreed with the majority's adoption of the reasonable expectation test, but did not agree that the test under the present facts mandated an affirmance of the trial court.
This Court granted Morrison's petition for certiorari on October 19, 1982. We reverse.
The issue concerns the interpretation to be given Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314, which provides in part:
The issue also concerns the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, which requires that "a plaintiff must prove he suffered injury or damages to himself or his property by one who sold a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff as the ultimate user or consumer...." Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134, 141 (Ala.1976).
The two standards go hand-in-hand, for it is apparent that a food product is defective or unreasonably dangerous if it is unmerchantable or unfit for human consumption. See Matthews v. Campbell Soup Co., 380 F.Supp. 1061 (S.D.Tex.1974).
The Court of Civil Appeals rejected the adoption of the so-called "foreign-natural" rule urged by Morrison's. This rule first appeared in Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co., 6 Cal.2d 674, 59 P.2d 144 (1936), where the court, holding that a fragment of chicken bone did not render a chicken pie unfit for human consumption as a matter of law, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
... ... , Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Brenda D. Tillman, as administratrix of ... Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation; Philip Morris, Inc. (now Philip Morris USA Inc.); 1 and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco ... Hotel, 592 So.2d 218, 220 (Ala.1991) ( quoting Ex parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d 975, ... ...
-
Southwest Pet Products, Inc. v. Koch Industries
... ... Montgomery, 6 Ariz.App. 213, 216, 431 P.2d 108 (1967) ... As ... substances in the particular type of dish or style of food." Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc. v. Haddox, 431 So.2d 975, 978 ... ...
-
Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court
... ... (See, e.g., Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc. (Ala.1983) 431 ... ...
-
Cabán v. R Seafood, Civil No. 14–1507(GAG).
... ... , Nestor Daniel GalarzaDiaz, Metro Pavia Health System, Inc., Legal Department, Carolina, PR, for Defendants. OPINION, ... 1 Cal.4th 617, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 822 P.2d 1292 ; Ex parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d 975 ... ...
-
Chapter § 4.04 LIABILITY OF HOTELS AND RESORTS FOR COMMON TRAVEL PROBLEMS
...(restaurant not liable for foreign object in patron's lemonade). State Courts: Alabama: Ex parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, 431 So. 2d 975 (Ala. 1983) (patron choked on fish bone). Florida: McFadden v. Staley, 687 So. 2d 357 (Fla. App. 1997) (1,600 restaurant patrons may have been ......