Title: Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc.
Citation: 431 So. 2d 975
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: March 11, 1983

431 So. 2d 975 (1983)
Ex parte MORRISON'S CAFETERIA OF MONTGOMERY, INC.
(Re MORRISON'S CAFETERIA OF MONTGOMERY, INC. v. Inez HADDOX, Etc.)
81-886.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 11, 1983.
Robert C. Black of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole &amp; Black, Montgomery, for Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc.
Dennis R. Bailey of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston &amp; Garrett, Montgomery, for Pinellas Seafood Co., Inc.
Robert M. Alton, Jr., Montgomery, for respondents.
*976 SHORES, Justice.
This case presents a question of first impression in this state. Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals following that court's affirmance of the trial court's judgment entered on a jury verdict totalling $6,000.78 against Morrison's for injuries sustained when Rodney Haddox, a minor, choked on a fishbone while dining at the restaurant.
The facts as found by the Court of Civil Appeals and by which we are bound are as follows:
Morrison's appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, citing as error: (1) the trial court's denial of Morrison's motions for a directed verdict and JNOV against Haddox on the implied warranty and AEMLD claims; and (2) the trial court's denial of Morrison's motions for a new trial based on alleged inconsistent verdicts as to Morrison's and Pinellas. Morrison's urged the Court of Civil Appeals to adopt the so-called "foreign-natural" rule and determine as a matter of law that a bone in a piece of fish does not breach the implied warranty of fitness.
A divided Court of Civil Appeals, in affirming the trial court's decision, rejected the "foreign-natural" rule in favor of the "reasonable expectation" test. Judge Holmes, dissenting in part, agreed with the majority's adoption of the reasonable expectation test, but did not agree that the test under the present facts mandated an affirmance of the trial court.
This Court granted Morrison's petition for certiorari on October 19, 1982. We reverse.
The issue concerns the interpretation to be given Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314, which provides in part:
The issue also concerns the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, which requires that "a plaintiff must prove he suffered injury or damages to himself or his property by one who sold a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff as the ultimate user or consumer...." Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So. 2d 134, 141 (Ala.1976).
The two standards go hand-in-hand, for it is apparent that a food product is defective or unreasonably dangerous if it is unmerchantable or unfit for human consumption. See Matthews v. Campbell Soup Co., 380 F. Supp. 1061 (S.D.Tex.1974).
The Court of Civil Appeals rejected the adoption of the so-called "foreign-natural" rule urged by Morrison's. This rule first appeared in Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co., 6 Cal. 2d 674, 59 P.2d 144 (1936), where the court, holding that a fragment of chicken bone did not render a chicken pie unfit for human consumption as a matter of law, stated:
59 P.2d  at 148.
The undesirability of the foreign substance test lies in the artificial application at the initial stage of processing the food without consideration of the expectations of the consumer in the final product served. Surely it is within the expectation of the consumer to find a bone in a T-bone steak; but just as certainly it is reasonable for a consumer not to expect to find a bone in a package of hamburger meat. It is entirely possible that a natural substance found in processed food may be more indigestible and cause more injury than many "foreign" substances.
The "reasonable expectation" test as adopted by the Florida courts in Zabner v. Howard Johnson's, Inc., 201 So. 2d 824 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1967), appears to us a more logical approach. Under that test, the pivotal issue is what is reasonably expected by the consumer in the food as served, not what might be natural to the ingredients of that food prior to preparation. Id. at 826. "Naturalness of the substance to any ingredients in the food served is important only in determining whether the consumer may reasonably expect to find such substance in the particular type of dish or style of food served." Id.
Adoption in this jurisdiction of the reasonable expectation test is compatible with the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine and the implied warranty of merchantability (§ 7-2-314). The terms "defect," "unreasonably dangerous," and "merchantable" all focus upon the expectations of the ordinary consumer, possessed of the ordinary knowledge common to the community. Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So. 2d 128, 133 (Ala.1976), quoting Welch v. Outboard Marine Corp., 481 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.1973).
The Court of Civil Appeals held that what a consumer is reasonably justified in expecting is a question for the jury. Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc. v. Haddox, 431 So. 2d 969 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), citing Hochberg v. O'Donnell's Restaurant, Inc., 272 A.2d 846 (D.C.App.1971). We agree that in most instances this would be true. In other instances, however, we agree with the California Supreme Court in Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co., supra, wherein that court held:
6 Cal. 2d  at 681-82, 59 P.2d  at 148. As the court concluded in Hochberg, supra, after holding the question of reasonable expectation to normally be a jury question: "It is a *979 different matter if one is injured by a bone while eating a chicken leg or steak or a whole baked fish. There, it may well be held as a matter of law that the consumer should reasonably expect to find a bone." 272 A.2d  at 849.
We agree with Judge Holmes in the instant case that, on the facts presented, the Court should find as a matter of law that a one-centimeter bone found in a fish fillet "makes that fish neither unfit for human consumption nor unreasonably dangerous." Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc. v. Haddox, 431 So. 2d 969 (Ala. Civ.App.1982), Holmes, J., dissenting.
Courts cannot and must not ignore the common experience of life and allow rules to develop that would make sellers of food or other consumer goods insurers of the products they sell. As has been pointed out, "consumers do have rather high expectations as to the safety of the products which are offered for sale to them ... [and] they have a rather low threshold for the frustration of these expectations." Rheingold, What Are the Consumer's "Reasonable Expectations"?, 22 Bus.Law. 589 (1967).
On the facts presented here, we find as a matter of law that the presence of a onecentimeter bone did not render the piece of fish unreasonably dangerous. As Judge Holmes stated:
We find, therefore, that the trial court erred in denying Morrison's motions for directed verdict and JNOV. The issue of inconsistent verdicts as related to Morrison's and Pinellas thus becomes moot and need not be addressed.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is due to be reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, EMBRY, BEATTY, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
FAULKNER, J., dissents.
FAULKNER, Justice (dissenting):
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.