Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-06-07148/USCOURTS-caDC-06-07148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 14, 2007 Decided November 16, 2007 

No. 06-7148 

MILTON MILLS, M.D., ET AL., 

APPELLANTS

v. 

GIANT OF MARYLAND, LLC, ET AL., 

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 05cv02211) 

Daniel Kinburn argued the cause for appellants. With 

him on the briefs were Bernard J. DiMuro and John M. Tran. 

Steven J. Rosenbaum argued the cause and filed the brief 

for appellees. 

Geoffrey S. Gavett filed a notice adopting the brief of 

appellees on behalf of Cloverland Farms Dairy, Inc. 

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 9
2 

Before: GARLAND and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and 

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. 

 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

KAVANAUGH. 

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: In this case, a group of 

lactose-intolerant individuals filed an unusual class-action 

lawsuit against nine sellers of milk. The plaintiffs allege that 

they consumed milk before they were aware of their lactose 

intolerance and, as a result, suffered temporary gas and 

stomach discomfort. According to plaintiffs, the milk sellers 

should have put warnings on the labels, informing consumers 

that some individuals might be intolerant of milk. 

The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that it did 

not state a claim under District of Columbia tort law. We 

affirm. Tort law does not provide protection from the obvious 

or “widely known” risks of consuming a particular food. The 

risk that some people will get gas after consuming certain 

foods, such as milk, is widely known. A bout of gas or 

indigestion does not justify a race to the courthouse. Indeed, 

were the rule otherwise, a variety of food manufacturers as 

well as stadiums, bars, restaurants, convenience stores, and 

hot dog stands throughout the country would be liable to 

millions of would-be plaintiffs every day. Plaintiffs’ novel 

claim falls far short of what D.C. law requires. 

I 

 Millions of Americans suffer from lactose intolerance, a 

genetic condition that prevents them from processing the 

principal sugar in milk. NAT’L INST. OF DIABETES &

DIGESTIVE & KIDNEY DISEASES, U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH &

HUMAN SERVS., LACTOSE INTOLERANCE 3 (2006). For 

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 9
3 

lactose-intolerant individuals, the consumption of milk and 

other dairy products can result in unpleasant stomach 

symptoms. 

 Plaintiffs are a group of lactose-intolerant individuals 

who reside in the District of Columbia and Maryland. They 

purport to represent a class of all lactose-intolerant persons 

“who, unaware of their condition, have purchased milk in 

Washington, D.C., and suffered the consequences of its 

consumption.” Complaint at 8, Mills v. Giant of Md., No. 

05cv02211 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2005), Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 17. 

They allege that, before they were aware of their condition, 

they suffered temporary “flatulence, bloating, cramps, and 

diarrhea” as a result of drinking milk. Complaint at 2, J.A. 11. 

Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia against nine defendants – seven dairy processors 

and two grocery-store retailers that sell milk in D.C. Under 

the Class Action Fairness Act, defendants removed the case to 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. See 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453. 

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that the milk sellers 

breached their duty of reasonable care. According to 

plaintiffs, the sellers were aware of the effects of milk on 

consumers who did not yet know they were lactose intolerant, 

but the sellers failed to warn consumers about those effects. 

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeks damages as well as a permanent 

injunction requiring milk sellers to include warnings on their 

milk packaging, such as the following: 

Warning – If you experience diarrhea or 

stomach cramps after consuming milk, you may 

be lactose intolerant. Check with your 

physician. 

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 9
4 

Warning – Lactose intolerant individuals may 

experience bloating, diarrhea, or other 

gastrointestinal discomfort from consuming 

milk. Check with your physician. 

Complaint at 17, J.A. 26. 

 The District Court dismissed the suit under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). First, the court concluded that 

the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act preempted 

plaintiffs’ D.C. tort-law claim. See 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a)(1). 

The NLEA prohibits states and local authorities from 

establishing any requirement for food that is the subject of a 

federal “standard of identity” – a federal definition of the 

composition of a food – unless the requirement is identical to 

that federal standard of identity. See id. The court concluded 

that D.C. may not impose labeling requirements for milk 

different from the labeling requirements that federal law 

imposes. 

Second, the court held that, in any event, plaintiffs failed 

to state a claim under D.C. tort law. The District Court 

concluded that no duty to warn exists when the health hazard 

associated with a food product is analogous to a common 

allergy. The court reasoned that, because lactose intolerance 

is a widely known condition and results in less severe 

symptoms than many common allergies (such as shellfish 

allergies), there is no duty to warn of the risk of consuming 

milk. 

 We review de novo the District Court’s dismissal of 

plaintiffs’ claim. Gilvin v. Fire, 259 F.3d 749, 756 (D.C. Cir. 

2001). The existence of a legal duty to warn in this situation 

is a question of law for the court to determine. In re Sealed 

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 9
5 

Case, 67 F.3d 965, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Zhou v. 

Jennifer Mall Rest., 534 A.2d 1268, 1274 (D.C. 1987)). 

II 

According to plaintiffs, milk manufacturers and sellers 

must provide warnings that milk can cause certain consumers 

to suffer temporary gas and stomach discomfort. The problem 

for plaintiffs is that a manufacturer’s or seller’s duty of 

reasonable care does not entail a duty to warn of risks “that 

should be obvious to, or generally known by, foreseeable 

product users.” RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY § 2 cmt. j (1998); see Delahanty v. Hinckley, 564 

A.2d 758, 760 (D.C. 1989) (“There is no duty to 

warn . . . ‘when the danger, or potentiality of danger, is 

generally known and recognized.’”) (quoting RESTATEMENT 

(SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A cmt. j (1965)); PROSSER &

KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 96, at 686 (5th ed. 1984). 

This principle derives from the common-sense notion that 

warning of an “obvious or generally known risk in most 

instances will not provide an effective additional measure of 

safety.” RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY § 2 cmt. j. After all, “warnings that deal with 

obvious or generally known risks may be ignored by users and 

consumers and may diminish the significance of warnings 

about non-obvious, not-generally-known risks.” Id. 

In the food context, these tort-law principles foreclose 

failure-to-warn liability when the risk that some people might 

have an adverse reaction to the food is “widely known.” As 

the Restatement of Torts explains, when “both the presence of 

an allergenic ingredient in the product and the risks presented 

by such ingredient are widely known, instructions and 

warnings about that danger are unnecessary.” RESTATEMENT 

(THIRD) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 2 cmt. k; see also

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 9
6 

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A cmt. j (Where “the 

product contains an ingredient to which a substantial number 

of the population are allergic, and the ingredient is one whose 

danger is not generally known, or if known is one which the 

consumer would reasonably not expect to find in the product, 

the seller is required to give warning against it . . . .”). 

Courts have applied these principles to a host of failureto-warn challenges regarding the widely known risks of 

consuming certain foods. See, e.g., Garrison v. Heublein, 

Inc., 673 F.2d 189, 192 (7th Cir. 1982) (dangers of alcohol are 

“common knowledge”); Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 237 F. 

Supp. 2d 512, 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (health risks associated 

with fast foods are “open and obvious”); id. at 532 (“It is wellknown that fast food in general, and McDonalds’ products in 

particular, contain high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt, and 

sugar, and that such attributes are bad for one.”); Joseph E. 

Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. McGuire, 814 S.W.2d 385, 388 (Tex. 

1991) (danger of alcohol is “widely known and recognized”); 

Maguire v. Pabst Brewing Co., 387 N.W.2d 565, 570 (Iowa 

1986) (risk of intoxication from beer is “sufficiently known to 

consumers at large”); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF 

TORTS § 402A cmt. i (ordinary consumer is aware that sugar 

can harm diabetics); id. (well known that butter can cause 

clogged arteries); cf. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS:

PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 2 cmt. k, illus. 13 (producers can 

assume that those who are allergic to aspirin are aware of their 

allergies); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A cmt. j 

(“The seller may reasonably assume that those with common 

allergies, as for example to eggs or strawberries, will be aware 

of them, and he is not required to warn against them.”). 

In two main categories of cases, the risks from food are 

not considered “widely known”: “unknown-ingredient” cases 

and “unknown-harm” cases. 

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 9
7 

The first category – “unknown-ingredient” cases – 

encompasses situations where a substantial number of 

consumers are allergic to a food ingredient that reasonable 

consumers would not expect to find in the food. See, e.g.,

Livingston v. Marie Callender’s, Inc., 72 Cal. App. 4th 830, 

832, 839-40 (1999) (MSG in fresh vegetable soup); Brown v. 

McDonald’s Corp., 655 N.E.2d 440, 442-44 (Ohio Ct. App. 

1995) (seaweed-derived ingredient in hamburger). The 

parties here agree, however, that this is not an “unknowningredient” case: Plaintiffs’ complaint relates not to an 

unknown ingredient in milk but rather to the known and 

inherent qualities of milk. 

The second category – “unknown-harm” cases – 

encompasses situations where reasonable consumers are not 

aware of the harm that a food may cause to certain people. In 

other words, although consumers may know the ingredients in 

a certain food, they may not know the harm that the food or 

the food’s known ingredients can bring about. The relevant 

inquiry in an “unknown-harm” case is whether a “reasonable” 

consumer would know that the food could cause an adverse 

reaction in some people. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF 

TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 2 cmt. k.TPF

1

FPT 

We need not ponder what kinds of hypothetical food 

cases, if any, properly fit into the “unknown-harm” box under 

D.C. tort law because we hold as a matter of law that a 

reasonable consumer today would be well aware that milk 

may adversely affect some people. Although it is true that 

lactose intolerance is not randomly dispersed throughout the 

 

TP

1

PT This case involves a claim about the inherent aspects of a food 

product, not about an adulterated food, such as when a pebble is 

found in a can of peas. An adulterated food is considered a 

manufacturing defect. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS:

PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 7 cmt. a; id. § 2 cmt. h. 

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 9
8 

population, the fact that 30 to 50 million Americans suffer 

from some level of lactose intolerance makes it likely – as a 

matter of basic statistics – that most Americans and most D.C. 

residents know a family member, friend, co-worker, or other 

acquaintance who cannot comfortably drink milk. See NAT’L 

INST. OF DIABETES & DIGESTIVE & KIDNEY DISEASES, U.S. 

DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., LACTOSE INTOLERANCE 

3 (2006). Moreover, products targeted to lactose-intolerant 

individuals are now commonplace in grocery stores and 

pharmacies. See, e.g., CVS/pharmacy, cvs.com; Lactaid, 

lactaid.com; Organic Valley, organicvalley.coop; Peapod by 

GIANT, peapod.com. And in addition to knowledge 

distributed by word of mouth, the problem of lactose 

intolerance has received an extraordinary amount of attention 

in the media and in the medical community. See, e.g., Jane E. 

Brody, Food Allergies: A Growing Controversy, N.Y. TIMES, 

Apr. 29, 1990 (“The best known [adverse reaction to food] is 

lactose intolerance . . . .”); Elena Cherney, New LactoseIntolerance Advice, WALL ST. J., Sept. 5, 2006, at D4; Daniel 

Q. Haney, Lactose Intolerant? Think Again, HOUSTON 

CHRON., July 6, 1995, at A16; Lynn Jacobson, Got Distress? 

Maybe You’re Lactose Intolerant, SEATTLE TIMES, May 16, 

2001, at E1; Lactose Intolerance Is Common, CINCINNATI 

POST, July 24, 2001, at 7B; Warren E. Leary, Just How 

Distressing Is Lactose Intolerance?, N.Y. TIMES, July 12, 

1995 (“Dr. Levitt said he believed that many people say milk 

is to blame for their digestive problems because lactose 

intolerance has been so well publicized and widely 

discussed.”); Hilary E. MacGregor, Dairy Needed, Even for 

the Lactose-Intolerant, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 13, 2006; Kim 

Painter, Don’t Milk Lactose for Ills, USA TODAY, July 6, 

1995, at 1A (describing lactose intolerance as a “trendy 

ailment”); Connie Prater, Got Gas? You Might Be Lactose 

Intolerant, CHI. TRIB., Mar. 30, 2003, at Q10; see also

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 9
9 

NUTRITIONAL DISEASE, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA 

ONLINE. 

We will not belabor the obvious. For purposes of tort 

law, the risk that milk will cause some people to experience 

temporary gas and related stomach discomfort is “widely 

known” – even if lactose intolerance as the cause is not. As a 

result, the risk that milk will cause temporary gas and stomach 

discomfort to lactose-intolerant individuals who do not yet 

know of their condition cannot support a failure-to-warn tort 

claim under D.C. tort law.TP F

2

FPT 

* * * 

We hold that plaintiffs’ claim is not cognizable under 

D.C. tort law. We therefore do not determine the preemptive 

scope of the “standard of identity” for milk under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 343-1(a)(1) and 21 C.F.R. § 131.110. Similarly, we 

withhold judgment on whether the kinds of injuries alleged by 

plaintiffs fall within the “safety” exception to the preemption 

provision. See Nutrition Labeling & Education Act, Pub. L. 

No. 101-535, § 6(c)(2), 104 Stat. 2353, 2364 (1990). We 

affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

 

So ordered. 

 

TP

2

PT Even if the risk were not widely known, the fact that the alleged 

harm from consuming milk is temporary and limited still might 

negate any warning requirement. Cf. Owens-Corning Fiberglas 

Corp. v. Henkel, 689 A.2d 1224, 1229 (D.C. 1997). 

USCA Case #06-7148 Document #1080715 Filed: 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 9