Scruggins v. Jones
| Citation | 207 Ky. 636 |
| Parties | Scruggins v. Jones, et al. |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1925 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
1. Sales — Retailer of Canned Foods is Not Responsible to Customer for Unwholesome Condition, Unless he Expressly Warrants. — Where article of food is one of general use, put up by reputable concern in sealed cans, exterior of which is in good condition, retailer is not responsible to customer for defective or unwholesome condition of contents, unless he expressly warrants it to be free from defects.
2. Sales — Evidence of Express Warranty of Wholesomeness of Canned Food Held Insufficient to go to Jury. — Evidence of express warranty of purity and wholesomeness of canned shrimps by retailer held insufficient to go to jury.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
WM. BAUMEISTER and D. MOXLEY for appellant.
ALLEN P. DODD for appellees.
Affirming.
Appellant, Mrs. Otia Scruggins, was recovering from a case of influenza. Within the previous ten years she had undergone several surgical operations which had affected her nervous system and she was in a state of general debility. Her physician prescribed sea food, particularly shrimp, as a diet. Her son purchased a can of this from appellees, who were conducting a grocery.
Claiming that the shrimp was poisonous and impure; that she ate of it and was thereby made sick and permanently injured she sued appellees and the firm packing the shrimp for damages on an implied warranty.
In an amended petition she alleged an express warranty upon the part of appellees. Being required to elect which cause of action she would prosecute she elected to prosecute that against appellees on the express warranty and dismissed the action as to the packing firm.
A motion was made at the close of plaintiff's evidence for a peremptory instruction, which was refused. At the close of all the evidence it was renewed and granted, and a directed verdict was returned against her, and she appeals.
Appellant states that the can was opened in the morning and immediately emptied into a bowl and that she observed some discoloration of the shrimp. She was not familiar with that diet and did not know whether there was anything wrong with it. She ate one piece in the morning and another at noon. At luncheon she partook of some potato soup and about two in the afternoon she ate some more of the shrimp and later was taken violently ill, suffering with violent retching and vomiting. A physician was called who administered medicines. Later in the evening she secured her family physician, who remained with her until eleven o'clock before she obtained relief. She had had no stomach trouble prior to this, but has suffered from it a great deal since.
Her physician corroborates her statements as to what occurred in his presence. He examined the shrimp and found some of it soft and discolored. The paper with which it was wrapped was also discolored. He put it back in the can with the paper around it and carried it to the city chemist for analysis. Her condition was similar to ptomaine poisoning. He thinks the shrimp was deteriorating and produced this condition. He had observed no stomach trouble prior to that time, but she has since suffered severely therefrom. He attributes this to the shrimp she ate and thinks her stomach is thereby permanently disarranged. He is not a bacteriologist but has had considerable experience in general practice.
Her son, William Scruggins, testifies that he purchased the can of shrimp from appellees on Saturday night. He took it home and on the following morning opened the can and emptied the contents into a clean bowl and gave his mother some of it. He also corroborates his mother in her other statements.
The city chemist was introduced by defendant. He testified that he made a chemical and bacteriological test; that the discoloration on the paper could be produced by the contents attacking the metal of the container, which was composed of tin and lead, but his examination disclosed the absence of any poison of that character and he thinks the discoloration was caused by fermentation. This led to a bacteriological test. He discovered some bacteria which he gave to white mice and white rabbits without any harmful effect. These animals have a reaction similar to that possessed by the human anatomy, and he does not think the shrimp was in a condition to be harmful to a person, though he does not approve that character of diet for one who is sick.
If we assume that there was an issue in the evidence for the jury to determine whether or not the condition of the shrimp was such as to prove harmful, it still does not appear that a peremptory instruction was improper.
Formerly food was generally sold direct by the producer to the consumer and the former was presumed to know its condition and held to a strict accountability therefor if it proved to be poisonous or harmful. Also the retailer selling food could by the sense of touch, sight or smell detect its condition and in offering it for human consumption was held to impliedly warrant both its character and condition. Under such circumstances the...
To continue reading
Request your trial