GERALD DOYLE AND MARIE DOYLE, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE PILLSBURY COMPANY, GREEN GIANT COMPANY, AND PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the implied warranty of fitness in food cases requires ingestion of a portion of the food product before liability arises, rejecting the broader application of the impact rule. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants where the plaintiff observed but did not ingest a contaminated food product.
Florida should not abrogate the impact rule in the context of foreign objects in food; instead, the court requires ingestion of a portion of the food product before liability under implied warranty theory arises. Because Mrs. Doyle never ingested any portion of the canned peas, summary judgment was properly granted.
[1] Recovery for injuries caused by foreign objects in food or drink is predicated on an implied warranty of fitness, without regard to privity, where a consumer suffers inju…
[2] Florida courts have required ingestion of a portion of a food product containing a foreign object as a prerequisite to recovery for injuries.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This ingestion requirement is grounded upon foreseeability rather than the impact rule. The public has become accustomed to believing in and relying on the fact that packaged foods are fit for consumption.”
Establishes that the basis for requiring ingestion is foreseeability, not the impact rule itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarie Doyle observed a large insect floating in a can of peas after her husband opened it. She jumped back in alarm, fell over a chair, and suffered p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impact Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
We have for review Doyle v. Pillsbury Co., 447 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which certified the following question to be of great public importance:
SHOULD FLORIDA ABROGATE THE "IMPACT RULE” AND ALLOW RECOVERY FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL IMPACT UPON THE PLAINTIFF?
Id. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The facts of this case do not warrant a full answer to the certified question.
After her husband opened a can of peas, Marie Doyle looked into the can and observed a large insect floating on the surface of the contents of the can. She jumped back in alarm, fell over a chair, and suffered physical injuries. Mr. and Mrs. Doyle filed an action to recover damages from Pillsbury, Green Giant, and Publix on negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty grounds. The trial court granted Pillsbury’s summary judgment motion (not at issue in this case) and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Green Giant and Publix, after finding that the impact rule barred the Doyles’ cause of action. The district court affirmed the summary judgment on the authority of Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1974).
Claims for injuries caused by foreign objects in food or drink led to the adoption of liability predicated on an implied warranty of fitness without regard to privity where a consumer suffers injury from unwhole some food. This Court first applied the breach of implied warranty theory to food manufacturers or packers, Blanton v. Cudahy Packing Co., 154 Fla. 872, 19 So. 2d 313 (1944), to restaurants, Cliett v. Lauderdale Biltmore Corp., 39 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1949), and to retailers of food products, Sencer v. Carl’s Markets, Inc., 45 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1950). Even with these liberalized rules to promote recovery for physical and psychic injury, the foreign object cases all involve some ingestion of a portion of the food or drink product. See, e.g., Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Macurda, 93 So. 2d 860 (Fla.1957) (plaintiffs could recover for injuries as a result of eating spinach found to contain worms); Way v. Tampa Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (plaintiff could recover for injuries suffered after drinking portion of soft drink before discovering what resembled a rat inside the bottle). To this extent Florida courts have required an “impact.”
This ingestion requirement is grounded upon foreseeability rather than the impact rule.* The public has become accustomed to believing in and relying on the fact that packaged foods are fit for consumption. A producer or retailer of food should foresee that a person may well become physically or mentally ill after consuming part of a food product and then discovering a deleterious foreign object, such as an insect or rodent, in presumably wholesome food or drink. The manufacturer or retailer must expect to bear the costs of the resulting injuries.
The same foreseeability is lacking where a person simply observes the foreign object and suffers injury after the observation. The mere observance of unwholesome food cannot be equated to consuming a portion of the same. We should not impose virtually unlimited liability in such cases. When a claim is based on an inert foreign object in a food product, we continue to require ingestion of a portion of the food before liability arises. Because Mrs. Doyle never ingested any portion of the canned peas, the trial court properly granted summary judgment against the Doyles.
We find no merit in any of the other issues raised by the Doyles. We approve that portion of Doyle affirming the summary judgment and quash that portion applying the impact rule to the circumstances of this case.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. ADKINS and SHAW, JJ., dissent.
*
The impact rule itself is a convenient means of determining foreseeability.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Arthur W. Kush, M.D. v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1992)…cal harm by which the emotional injury can be quantified. Our precedent in other contexts also has recognized an impact doctrine that precludes recovery where injury is occasioned by the mere observance of a traumatic event, Doyle v. Pillsbury Co., 476 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1985), except in certain narrowly defined cases in which negligently inflicted psychic trauma in turn causes discernible physical illness. Champion v. Gray, 478 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1985). However, we are not certain that the impact doctrine ever wa…
-
R.J. and P.J. v. Humana OF Fla., Inc., 652 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1995)…ivision, 468 So. 2d 903 (Fla.1985), we found that the driver of a defective automobile that struck and killed the driver’s mother had no cause of action for his mental distress because he sustained no physical injury. And, in Doyle v. Pillsbury Co., 476 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1985), we held that impact in the form of ingestion of food must occur before one can recover for emotional damages as a result of finding an insect in food. This does not mean that emotional injuries are never recoverable when a physical impa…
-
Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. COX, 481 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…rida Supreme Court recently held that while ingestion is required in food cases for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, "the ingestion requirement is grounded on foreseeability rather than the impact rule.” Doyle v. The Pillsbuty Co., 476 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1985) (pending on rehearing) (recovery denied on basis of lack of foreseeability where plaintiff, upon opening a can of peas, observed a large insect, jumped back in alarm, and fell over a chair, suffering physical injuries). Because ingestion…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1974)
- Oneida Langley Blanton v. THE Cudahy Packing Co., 154 Fla. 872 (Fla. 1944)
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla. v. Forrest H. MacUrda and Cherie K. Macurda, 93 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1957)
- Cliett v. Lauderdale Biltmore Corp., 39 So.2d 476 (Fla. 1949)
- Sencer v. Carl's Mkt., 45 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1950)
- WAY v. Tampa Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Doyle v. The Pillsbury Co., 447 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)