• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

hamburger meat/broke tooth

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

B

bushido

Guest
What is the name of your state? California
My husband broke his tooth on a bone that was in his hamburger meat . We haven't gone to a dentist yet (happened earlier tonight) Who'll be paying for his new tooth?
 


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
bushido said:
What is the name of your state? California
My husband broke his tooth on a bone that was in his hamburger meat . We haven't gone to a dentist yet (happened earlier tonight) Who'll be paying for his new tooth?


My response:

You - - unless, out of the goodness of their hearts they decide to pay - - not on a liability theory, but merely on a "good-will" theory. They are not negligent or legally "liable" to pay.

Providers of contaminated ("adulterated") food may be liable on product liability and breach of warranty theories if the injury-causing substance is foreign to the food (e.g., bits of glass or wire). In such event, the trier of fact must determine whether the foreign substance (a) could be reasonably expected by the average consumer and (b) rendered the food defective or "unfit" for human consumption. [Mexicali Rose v. Super.Ct. (Clark) (1992) 1 Cal.4th 617, 631, 633, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 154, 156]

No product defect from "natural" substances:

A substance that is natural to the preparation of a food item is by its very nature reasonably expected and, as a matter of law, cannot render the food unfit or defective. Plaintiffs in such cases thus have no strict liability or implied warranty cause of action. [Mexicali Rose v. Super.Ct. (Clark), supra, 1 Cal.4th at 630, 633, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d at 154, 156]

The term "natural" refers to bones and other substances normally associated with the food item; it "does not encompass substances such as mold or botulinus bacteria or other substances (like rat flesh or cow eyes) not natural to the preparation of the product served." [See Mexicali Rose v. Super.Ct. (Clark), supra, 1 Cal.4th at 630, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d at 154, fn. 5 (emphasis in original)--chicken bone is "natural" to preparation of chicken enchilada and thus not actionable on strict product liability theory; Ford v. Miller Meat Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1202, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 899, 902-903--tiny bone fragment in ground meat is natural substance and cannot support strict liability claim]

IAAL
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top