Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc. v. Haddox

Citations: 431 So. 2d 969; 1982 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1205Docket: Civ. 2867

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; May 26, 1982; Alabama; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mrs. Inez Haddox and her minor son Rodney were awarded $6,000.78 in jury verdicts against Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc. after Rodney choked on a fish bone while dining there. The incident occurred in May 1980, when Mrs. Haddox and her son ordered fish. Her testimony about the type of fish she ordered was inconsistent, with claims of asking for fish almondine or fried fish. She believed the fish to be a boneless fillet based on its appearance and her previous experiences. After serving the fish to Rodney, he choked on a bone that was later found lodged in his tonsil; he was hospitalized overnight but suffered no permanent injury.

During the incident, Mrs. Haddox expressed frustration with Morrison's staff, who were reportedly rude and insisted she pay her bill before leaving for the hospital. The manager testified that the fish served was Spanish mackerel fillet, sourced from Pinellas Seafood Company, which is not advertised as boneless. Morrison's policy is not to serve the fish on children's plates due to the potential presence of bones. An employee from Pinellas confirmed that while machines are used to fillet the fish, it is not possible to eliminate all small bones, which are permitted by government regulations.

Morrison's was not informed that Pinellas' fillets were boneless, with Pinellas selling approximately 99% of its fillets to Morrison's, which in turn sells to customers. To check for bones in the fillets, both companies would need to cut them into small pieces, which would ruin the fillets. Mrs. Haddox sued Morrison's and Pinellas for medical expenses and pain and suffering for Rodney, also alleging false imprisonment against Morrison's. Morrison's filed a cross claim against Pinellas. Directed verdict motions were denied, except for the false imprisonment claim, which Mrs. Haddox did not appeal. The jury found in favor of Mrs. Haddox against Morrison's for $1,000.78 and awarded Rodney $5,000.00, while ruling in favor of Pinellas on Morrison's cross claim. Morrison's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new trial were denied.

The appeal centers on whether the trial court erred in denying Morrison's motions regarding implied warranty and the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD). A motion for JNOV evaluates evidence sufficiency similarly to a directed verdict motion. Implied warranty claims arise under Alabama law, establishing that food served must be fit for human consumption. Morrison's argued for the adoption of the 'foreign-natural' rule, which posits that bones naturally present in fish do not breach the implied warranty, and thus a restaurant is not liable for injuries caused by such bones.

The 'foreign-natural' rule has been rejected in favor of the 'reasonable expectation' test, which evaluates whether consumers might reasonably expect to find certain substances in the food they order. This shift emphasizes consumer expectations over the classification of objects as foreign or natural. The jury is tasked with determining what consumers can reasonably expect, as demonstrated by Mrs. Haddox's belief that the fish she purchased was a boneless fillet, supported by dictionary definitions and evidence. The definition of 'defect' under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) combines principles of merchantability and the concept of 'unreasonably dangerous' products, meaning a product is defective if it does not meet ordinary consumer safety expectations. The determination of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is typically for the jury. In this case, the jury appropriately considered whether a one-centimeter bone in a fillet constituted a defect.

Regarding Morrison's appeal for a new trial based on inconsistent verdicts, the court noted that inconsistent verdicts warrant a new trial only when they cannot be supported by any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Morrison's argued that a verdict against them under AEMLD was inconsistent with a verdict for Pinellas, asserting that the fillet was sold without substantial change and that they did not create the alleged defect. While the court acknowledged the potential inconsistency, it emphasized that the jury's general verdict does not need to specify the theory of liability. A general verdict related to a valid claim is acceptable, and the claim for breach of implied warranty stands as a valid basis for recovery. Ultimately, there was no evidence to suggest that Morrison's had reasonable grounds to expect the fillet from Pinellas to be boneless under the reasonable expectations standard.

Morrison's had knowledge of the common presence of small bones in fish fillets, which could have influenced the jury's determination regarding the implied warranty of fitness extended to Mrs. Haddox. The jury could find that Mrs. Haddox had a reasonable expectation of receiving boneless fillets, and Morrison's knowledge of the contrary might support a verdict against them for breach of implied warranty. The court affirmed the denial of Morrison's motion for a new trial, noting that new trials cannot be granted simply because a different verdict might have been reached by the judges. The judgment was upheld, though there was acknowledgment that Morrison's actions after the sale likely impacted the jury's verdict.

Judge Holmes partially concurred and dissented, agreeing with the majority's rejection of the 'foreign-natural' test in favor of the 'reasonable expectation' test but contending that the facts did not warrant affirming the trial court's decision. He referenced the Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co. case, arguing that a one-centimeter bone found in a fish fillet does not render it unfit for consumption or unreasonably dangerous. He highlighted that fish typically contain bones, and regulations allow for some bones in fillets. He maintained that the implied warranty of merchantability was not breached under these specific circumstances and suggested that had there been claims of boneless fish or larger/multiple bones, his conclusion would differ. Holmes would have reversed the trial judge's denial of Morrison's directed verdict motion.