Estate of Pinkham v. Cargill, Inc.

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated summary judgment for Cargill in a products-liability action involving an esophageal perforation allegedly caused by bone or cartilage in boneless turkey. The court adopted the reasonable-expectation test for defective food products under Maine’s strict-liability statute and held that the Estate presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact. The court also recognized that an inference of product defect may be available under Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 3.

Holdings

1. Maine adopts the reasonable-expectation test for strict-liability cases alleging a defective food product under 14 M.R.S. § 221. Liability may exist when a substance in the food, whether natural to an ingredient or not, is something the consumer would not reasonably expect to find in the product.
2. Summary judgment was improper because the Estate presented sufficient evidence to create genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether a foreign body in the turkey product caused Pinkham's esophageal perforation and whether a consumer would reasonably expect to find that foreign body in a product labeled or sold as boneless turkey.
3. The Estate may seek recovery under Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 3. Whether the injury was solely the result of causes other than a product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution is a question of fact for the jury.

Questions Presented

1. What legal test governs a strict-liability claim under 14 M.R.S. § 221 involving an allegedly defective food product?
2. Whether the Estate presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether a foreign body in Cargill's turkey product caused Pinkham's esophageal injury and whether the product was defective.
3. Whether the Estate may seek an inference of product defect under Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 3 without proof of a specific defect.
4. Whether the appellate court needed to decide the admissibility of the excluded affidavits and statements offered by the Estate.

Disposition

vacated