Title: Gardyjan v. Tatone
Citation: 528 P.2d 1332
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1974

528 P.2d 1332 (1974)
Daniel R. GARDYJAN, Respondent,
v.
Joseph M. TATONE and Alice M. Tatone, Dba the Dodge City Inn, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted October 28, 1974.
Decided December 12, 1974.
Harold A. Fabre of Fabre &amp; Ehlers, Pendleton, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.
Monte E. Walter of Duncan &amp; Walter, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before O'CONNELL, C.J., and HOLMAN, TONGUE, HOWELL, BRYSON and SLOPER, JJ.
Argued and Submitted October 28, 1974, at Pendleton.
HOWELL, Justice.
This is an action for personal injuries which plaintiff alleges were incurred as a result of eating unwholesome food at defendants' restaurant. Defendants appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff.
Plaintiff is a truck driver who was hauling heavy equipment from South Carolina to Seattle. On April 7, 1972, at approximately 8:30 a.m. plaintiff and his co-driver stopped for breakfast at defendants' restaurant in Boardman. Their last previous stop had been in Wyoming the night before where plaintiff had a chicken salad sandwich and a glass of milk. At defendants' restaurant plaintiff ordered a ham omelet, hash brown potatoes, and a glass of orange juice. Plaintiff noted that the omelet had a rancid taste and a slight odor, and he ate only half the omelet and potatoes. About halfway between Boardman and Portland plaintiff became ill. His illness increased to such a degree that when he reached Tacoma he was admitted to a hospital.
*1333 Plaintiff's complaint was predicated on negligence, and he alleged:
Defendants contend that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on breach of warranty:
The plaintiff brought his case in negligence. He could have alleged a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, ORS 72.3140 (UCC § 2-314), or strict liability in tort. Indeed, the first draft of § 402A of the Restatement of Torts (Second) was limited to food and drink. See Prosser on Torts 657, n. 51, § 98 (4th ed. 1971). However, to come within these liberal theories of strict liability the plaintiff must allege them in his complaint and give the defendants notice of his cause of action. This he failed to do. Thus, it was error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the basis of implied warranty of fitness of the food for human consumption.
In Blake v. Webster Orchards, 249 Or. 348, 437 P.2d 757 (1968), the plaintiff alleged a cause of action in negligence but proceeded to try the case in part on the theory of strict liability. The trial court instructed the jury on strict liability. This court held that "[i]f a plaintiff desires to allege two or more theories of recovery, it remains necessary to allege each, one in negligence and one in strict liability, if those are plaintiff's two theories." 249 Or. at 352, 437 P.2d  at 758.
In Blake, as in the instant case, plaintiff contended that the defendant was not prejudiced by plaintiff's failure to allege alternative theories. The court said:
A more difficult question is whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of defendants' negligence to justify the submission of the case to the jury. There was evidence that the plaintiff ate nothing at all from the time he had the chicken salad sandwich in Wyoming at 9 o'clock the previous evening until he had breakfast at defendants' restaurant. There was also evidence that the omelet had a rancid taste and a slight odor. Plaintiff began to suffer stomach cramps approximately one and one-half hours after eating breakfast. His illness increased in severity, and when he arrived in Portland he was suffering severe vomiting, diarrhea, stomach and chest cramps, and blurred vision. Plaintiff's condition became such *1334 that he and his co-driver were forced to stop at a motel in Tacoma. Later the motel operator took plaintiff to the hospital.
Dr. Fox treated the plaintiff at the hospital. He diagnosed plaintiff's malady as acute staphylococcal gastroenteritis, which diagnosis, as defendants argue, was Dr. Fox's "impression." However, the doctor also testified as follows:
No tests were conducted on the food in question to determine if it was, in fact, tainted, and the plaintiff offered no evidence of other complaints concerning the food served in defendants' restaurant.
We feel that there was sufficient evidence of unwholesomeness of the food to submit the case to the jury. As the District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals has stated:
Accord, Lohse v. Coffe, 32 A.2d 258 (DC Mun.App. 1943); Sneed v. Beaverson, 395 P.2d 414 (Okla. 1964); cf. Carter Farms Company v. Hoffman Laroche, Inc., 83 N.M. 383, 492 P.2d 1000 (1971). And see cases listed in Annot., 130 ALR 616, 617 (1940). But see John Morrell &amp; Company v. Shultz, 208 So. 2d 906 (Miss. 1968); Geisness v. Scow Bay Packing Co., 16 Wash. 2d 1, 132 P.2d 740 (1942); Walton v. Guthrie, 50 Tenn. App. 383, 362 S.W.2d 41 (1962); Hebert v. Loveless, 474 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Civ.App. 1971).
The defendants also contend that a likely cause of the food poisoning was the chicken salad sandwich that plaintiff ate in Wyoming. The fact that there was another possible cause of the plaintiff's illness is not fatal to his case. He need only prove that the defendants' food was the more likely cause:
With regard to the breach of the defendants' duty of due care to see that the food served was wholesome, the plaintiff did testify that the food tasted rancid and had *1335 a slight odor. Thus, there was some evidence from which the jury could infer that there was some outward manifestation of unwholesomeness which one of defendants' employees, exercising reasonable care, should have noticed.
We conclude that plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence to present a jury question on the issue of defendants' negligence, and the trial court properly overruled defendants' motion for a directed verdict. However, because of the erroneous instruction, the cause must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.