Jackson v. Nestle-Beich

Supreme Court of Illinois · 1992 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityFood productsImplied warrantystrict products liabilitybreach of implied warrantyfood defectsforeign-natural doctrine

Facts

In May 1988, Jackson bought a sealed can of Katydids, chocolate-covered pecan and caramel candies manufactured by Nestle. After biting into one of the candies, she allegedly broke a tooth on a pecan shell embedded in the candy. She then sued Nestle asserting breach of implied warranty and strict products liability. Nestle sought summary judgment on the ground that a pecan shell was natural to one of the candy's ingredients and therefore barred recovery under the foreign-natural doctrine.

Issue

Whether Illinois should continue to apply the foreign-natural doctrine to bar recovery when the injuring substance in a food product is natural to one of its ingredients, or instead apply a reasonable expectation test to breach of implied warranty and strict products liability claims involving food.

Rule

In Illinois food-product cases, the dispositive inquiry for breach of implied warranty and strict products liability is the reasonable expectation of the consumer: liability may exist if a reasonable consumer would not expect the food product to contain the substance that caused the injury. The naturalness of the injuring substance is not an absolute bar to recovery, but only a factor relevant to whether the product breached a warranty or was unreasonably dangerous.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Chicago, Dana Ruiz bought a sealed cup of peach yogurt made by Lakeshore Creamery. While eating it, she cracked a molar on a peach pit fragment. She sues the manufacturer for strict products liability and breach of implied warranty.

Which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for the manufacturer?

Explanation. The majority adopted the reasonable expectation test for Illinois food-product cases and rejected the foreign-natural doctrine. A substance's naturalness is only one factor; it is not an automatic bar. Thus the key inquiry is whether an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect the injuring substance in the finished food product.