Introduction
Product liability cases often hinge on the question of whether a product is “defective.” This determination can be particularly complex when it comes to food items. While the consumer expectation test serves as a standard in many product liability cases, some jurisdictions apply a different standard to food—the foreign-natural doctrine. This article examines the differences between these two tests, using a specific case as an example.
Understanding Strict Product Liability
In a strict product liability claim, the plaintiff doesn’t need to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Instead, they must prove the product was defective and that the defect caused their injury. The definition of “defective” is where the consumer expectation test and the foreign-natural doctrine come into play.
The Consumer Expectation Test
The consumer expectation test assesses whether a product is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect it to be. For example, a consumer wouldn’t expect a toy marketed to children to have sharp edges. If the toy does have sharp edges and a child is injured, the toy could be considered defective under this test.
The Foreign-Natural Doctrine
The foreign-natural doctrine, however, applies a different standard to food. Under this doctrine, a food product isn’t considered defective if the injury-causing substance was naturally occurring in one of its ingredients. For instance, if a person breaks a tooth on a cherry pit in a cherry pie, the pie wouldn’t necessarily be considered defective because cherry pits are natural to cherries.
Case Study: Examining the Boundaries
A case involving a chocolate-covered pecan candy highlights the tension between these two doctrines. A consumer broke a tooth on a pecan shell embedded in the candy and sued the manufacturer. The manufacturer argued that under the foreign-natural doctrine, they weren’t liable because pecan shells are a natural part of pecans.
The trial court agreed with the manufacturer, but the appellate court reversed the decision, favoring the consumer expectation test. The case ultimately reached the Illinois Supreme Court, raising questions about the continued relevance and fairness of the foreign-natural doctrine in a modern context.
Arguments for and Against the Foreign-Natural Doctrine
Proponents of the foreign-natural doctrine argue that it protects food manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits and recognizes that consumers should expect some level of natural variation in food products.
However, critics argue that the doctrine is outdated and doesn’t adequately protect consumers. They argue that modern food processing methods make it difficult for consumers to anticipate and guard against naturally occurring hazards, such as hard shells or bones, within processed food.
Conclusion
The debate over the consumer expectation test and the foreign-natural doctrine highlights the complexities of product liability law, particularly when applied to food. As manufacturing processes evolve and consumer expectations shift, courts continue to grapple with finding a balance between protecting manufacturers from unreasonable liability and ensuring consumer safety.