Wagner v. Mars, Inc., 4482
| Decision Date | 05 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 4482,4482 |
| Parties | Nellie R. WAGNER, Appellant, v. MARS, INC., a corporation, and Grand Union Company, a corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph M. Murasko and Orville Johnson, III, Fern Park, for appellant.
Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for appellees.
WILLSON, J. H., Associate Judge.
This is a products liability action in which the appellant seeks to recover damages for the breach of an implied warranty that a candy bar, manufactured by the appellee Mars, Inc., and sold at retail by the appellee, Grand Union Company, was fit for human consumption.
Appellant's third amended complaint alleged that the candy bar, when purchased, was in a 'completely sealed paper wrapper;' that it 'contained several nails or pins, similar in nature to the common straight pin, which was (sic) an integral part of the said candy bar and was (sic) concealed therein in such a manner that the mentioned foreign object (sic) would not be detected by visual observation,' and that when appellant bit into the candy bar, her tongue was pierced by one of the nails or pins, thereby causing her pain and suffering, and necessitating medical treatment.
The lower Court dismissed the amended complaint, with prejudice, on the ground that the theory of implied warranty of fitness for use cannot be extended to food stuffs solely encased in a paper wrapper. The only question presented for our consideration is the correctness of this ruling.
Products liability law has undergone a rapid development in the past fifty years. This has been brought about in some states by statutory enactments, while in others the Courts have reached the same conclusion through logical extensions of common law principles. The Courts of this state, in keeping with our common law tradition, have pioneered this development, rather than leaving it for legislative action.
The process of developing the products liability law has been plagued by confusion in all jurisdictions, and, as the present case witnesses, there is still a measure of confusion in our state. The basic principles, however, are now well-settled.
The Courts of this state are committed to the doctrine that, as to items of food in the original package, there is an implied warranty of fitness for the uses and purposes for which they are offered for sale and sold, and that one who is injured as a result of injurious substances therein, which are unknown to him, may hold either the manufacturer or the retailer liable in damages for the breach of the implied warranty; Blanton v. The Cudahy Packing Co., 154 Fla. 872, 19 So.2d 313; Sencer v. Carl's Market, Fla., 45 So.2d 671; Florida Coca Cola Botting Co. v. Jordan, Fla., 62 So.2d 910; Food Fair Stores of Florida v. Macurda, Fla., 93 So.2d 860. See also Cliett v. Lauderdale Biltmore Corporation, Fla., 39 So.2d 476, which deals with the liability of a restaurant owner for food poisoning, and Smith v. Burdine's, Inc., 144 Fla. 500, 198 So. 223, 131 A.L.R. 115, which deals with products for human use rather than human consumption.
Smith v. Burdine's, Inc., supra, involving a lipstick, was the first products liability case to reach our Supreme Court. The Court enunciated the doctrine that where a buyer makes known to the seller the purpose for which he buys an article and relies upon the seller's skill and judgment, an implied warranty of fitness for which the article is purchased, arises as a matter of law. This was the rule at common law. 1 Williston on Sales, Rev.Ed. 586, citing Jones v. Just, L.R. 3 Q.B. 197, Vaccarino v. Cozzubo, 181 Md. 614, 31 A.2d 316. The Court, it should be noted, quoted with approval 1 Williston on Sales (2d ed.) 457, to the effect that the warranty of fitness may be merely the equivalent to the warrant of merchantability.
In Blanton v. The Cudahy Packing Co., supra, the article being canned meat, and the action against the manufacturer thereof, of, the Court found the rationale of the rule to be 'right, justice and welfare of the general purchasing and consuming public,' or as the Supreme Court of Texas said in Griggs Canning Company v. Josey, 139 Tex. 623, 164 S.W.2d 835, 142 A.L.R. 1424, 'public policy.'
It is true that none of the reported cases in this state deal with food products in sealed paper packages, and counsel have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. American Tobacco Company
...Blood Bank, 185 So.2d 749 (Fla.1966); Community Blood Bank v. Russell, 196 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1967). (2) Candy bar, Wagner v. Mars, Inc., 166 So.2d 673 (Fla.App.1964). (3) Soft drinks, Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Todd, 101 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1958). (4) Restaurant food, Cliett v. Lauderdale Bil......
-
Community Blood Bank, Inc. v. Russell
...So.2d 313; Carter v. Hector Supply Co., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 390; Green v. American Tobacco Co., supra, 154 So.2d 169; Wagner v. Mars, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 673; Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corp., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d It was at this point, however, that the appellate court took an......
-
Schmaltz v. St. Luke's Hospital
...See, e.g., Sencer v. Carl's Market, 45 So.2d 671 (Fla.); Blanton v. Cudahy Packing Co., 154 Fla. 872, 19 So.2d 313; Wagner v. Mars, Inc., 166 So.2d 673 (Fla.App.). Justice Roberts then noted the similarity between the adulterated food and contaminated blood fact 'There is a clear distinctio......
-
Enix v. Diamond T. Sales & Service Co., 5771
...skill and judgment, an implied warranty of fitness for which the article is purchased arises as a matter of law. Wagner v. Mars, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 673. Atlantic Distributors, Inc. v. Alson Mfg. Co., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 305. And the basis of liability on a breach of implied w......