Yong Cha Hong v. Marriott Corp.

Citations: 656 F. Supp. 445; 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 83; 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2055Docket: Civ. No. S 86-3805

Court: District Court, D. Maryland; March 19, 1987; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Yong Cha Hong initiated a legal action against Marriott Corporation and Gold Kist, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, claiming negligence and breach of warranty after encountering an item in a fried chicken wing that she believed to be a worm, leading to significant physical and emotional distress, and seeking $500,000 in damages. The defendants removed the case from state court on diversity grounds and subsequently filed for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding negligence or breach of warranty. Expert analysis suggested the object was likely a major blood vessel or trachea rather than a worm, a distinction the court assumed for evaluating the warranty claim. The legal question centered on whether Maryland law allows for a breach of warranty claim for personal injury from an unexpected edible part of the chicken. The defendants cited a precedent from Massachusetts (Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room, Inc.) where a plaintiff was denied warranty recovery after encountering a fish bone, suggesting that warranty recovery is contingent upon the item being classified as a 'foreign object' rather than a natural part of the food.

In DeGraff v. Myers Foods, the court addressed a case involving a chicken bone found in a chicken pot pie, resulting in a victory for the plaintiff. In contrast, in Flippo v. Mode O'Day Frock Shops, the plaintiff encountered a poisonous spider in a new pair of trousers and lost the case. The document emphasizes that fried chicken is a staple in American cuisine, reflecting cultural significance and culinary variations. It notes that the plaintiff had seen the offending item (the chicken bone) prior to consuming it, raising questions about her level of care in examining her food. The judge acknowledged that while it is common for chicken parts to have minor blood vessels, consumers should not be expected to be overly vigilant for inedible natural components like tracheas or aortas. The document references several cases where recovery was denied for natural but inedible items found in food, establishing a precedent that such items should be reasonably expected by consumers. The "reasonable expectation" test has been adopted in various jurisdictions, superseding the older natural/foreign test. The court concludes that Maryland would likely adopt the "reasonable expectation" standard, particularly given previous rulings that recognized claims for unfit food due to unexpected foreign items.

The Court applies the reasonable expectation test to determine the merchantability of a fast food fried chicken wing containing an inedible anatomical item (trachea or aorta) under U.C.C. § 2-314(2). Unlike cases involving small fish bones, the presence of a trachea or aorta is not reasonably expected, creating a question of fact for the jury regarding merchantability. The defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied because the plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of warranty could succeed regardless of whether the item was identified as a worm or not. Although the plaintiff's credibility may be compromised by conflicting evidence, her right to have factual issues decided by a jury is maintained. Summary judgment is also denied for the negligence claim, as negligence under Maryland law can be inferred without expert testimony. The case highlights that the Maryland U.C.C. warranty of merchantability applies to food sales, and any potential contributory negligence by the plaintiff is a matter for jury determination. The Court recognizes material disputes of fact and law, precluding summary judgment in favor of the defendants.