Parks v. The C. C. Yost Pie Company

Decision Date14 November 1914
Docket Number19,009
CitationParks v. The C. C. Yost Pie Company, 144 P. 202, 93 Kan. 334 (Kan. 1914)
PartiesELIZABETH PARKS et al., Appellees, v. THE C. C. YOST PIE COMPANY et al., Appellants
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided July, 1914.

Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 2;FRANK D HUTCHINGS, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1.POISONED FOOD -- Injury to Consumer -- Liability of Manufacturer and Retail Dealer.A dealer who sells human food for immediate consumption does so under an implied representation and guaranty that it is wholesome for the purpose for which it is sold.

2.SAME--A manufacturer who prepares food for human consumption and places it in the hands of a dealer for sale is responsible in damages to the widow of a consumer who procures such food from the dealer and loses his life by partaking of such food.

E. S. McAnany, Maurice L. Alden, Nathan Cree, all of Kansas City, and E. S. Herider, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellants.

George W. Littick, E. C. Little, and L. C. True, all of Kansas City, for the appellees.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

This action was brought by Elizabeth Parks, widow of Robert P. Parks, and Melissa Conn, daughter of Elizabeth Parks and Robert P. Parks, who also appears as next friend to Ada Belle Parks, a minor sister about twelve years of age.The action was brought to recover damages for the death of Robert P. Parks, the husband and father of the plaintiffs.It is alleged that Parks came to his death from ptomaine poisoning resulting from eating a pie, or a portion thereof, which was manufactured by the defendant pie company and sold by it to Joseph Alfes, a retail grocery merchant, who in turn sold and delivered it to the deceased as suitable food for himself and family; that the deceased ate a portion thereof and was thereby poisoned and made sick, and that his death resulted therefrom within twenty-four hours after partaking of such pie; that the pie contained deleterious ingredients in its manufacture or had been infected with poison which made it unwholesome and dangerous to human health and life, and that the defendants aided and abetted each other in placing the pie upon the market and selling it for use as human food; that the defendants were guilty of negligence in the manufacture and in the methods of handling the pie, and that such negligence was gross and wanton in endangering the health and life of Robert P. Parks and directly causing his death; that prior to such injury Robert P. Parks was a strong, healthy man about fifty-four years of age, and was industrious and prosperous, so that he at all times provided the plaintiffs, who were dependent upon him, with all the necessaries and many of the luxuries of life.

It is also alleged that Robert P. Parks died intestate, leaving as his sole heirs the plaintiffs and one other minor child who has since died single and without issue; that the plaintiffs were dependent upon the deceased for their support, and no administrator had been appointed for the estate of Robert P. Parks.Plaintiffs claimed actual damages in the sum of $ 5000 and exemplary damages for the same amount, and judgment for $ 10,000 was prayed for.

The defendant pie company in answer admitted its incorporation and denied all the other allegations of the petition.The defendant Alfes also admitted the incorporation of the pie company and made general denial of all the other allegations of the petition.

There is considerable conflict in the evidence as to the selling of the pie by Alfes, but there is sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to justify their finding that the defendant corporation manufactured the pie in question, sold and delivered it to the defendant Alfes to be sold in his usual course of business for human food, and there is sufficient evidence to justify the finding that Alfes sold the pie through a son of the deceased...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
59 cases
  • Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 11 Septiembre 1918
    ...853;Osgood v. Lewis, 2 Har. & G. (Md.) 495, 520, 18 Am. Dec. 317;Dulaney v. Jones, 100 Miss. 835-840, 57 South. 225;Parks v. C. C. Yost Pie Co., 93 Kan. 334-337,114 Pac. 202, L. R. A. 1915C, 179. See, however, Crigger v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 132 Tenn. 545-552, 179 S. W. 155, L. R. A. 191......
  • Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 9 Mayo 1960
    ...176 N.W. 382, 17 A.L.R. 649 (Sup.Ct.1920); Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 258 P.2d 317, 38 A.L.R.2d 887 (Sup.Ct.1953); Parks v. G. C. Yost Pie Co., 93 Kan. 334, 144 P. 202, L.R.A. 1915C, 179 (Sup.Ct.1914); Madouros v. Kansas City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 230 Mo.App. 275, 90 S.W.2d 445 (Ct.Ap......
  • Pelletier v. Dupont
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 3 Marzo 1925
    ...Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 678, 89 So. 64, 17 A. L. R. 667; Salmon v. Libby, McNeil & Libby, 219 Ill. 421, 76 N. E. 573; Parks v. C. C. Yost Pie Co., 93 Kan. 334, 144 P. 202, L. R. A. 1915C, 179; Goldman & Freiman Bottling Co. v. Sindell, 140 Md. 488, 117 A. 866; Flaccomio v. Eysink, 129 Md. 36......
  • Parish v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
    • United States
    • New York City Municipal Court
    • 24 Junio 1958
    ...v. Payne, 42 Ariz. 262, 25 P.2d 162; Davis v. Van Camp Packing Co., 189 Iowa 775, 176 N.W. 382, 17 A.L.R. 649; Parks v. C. C. Yost Pie Co., 93 Kan. 334, 144 P. 202, L.R.A.1915C. 179; Challis v. Hartloff, 136 Kan. 823, 18 P.2d 199; Hertzler v. Manshum, 228 Mich. 416, 200 N.W. 155; Bark v. Di......
  • Get Started for Free