Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1992No. S012707Published

1Dissent

MOSK, J., Dissenting.

I

The majority hold that processed food containing a sharp, concealed bone is fit for consumption, though no reasonable consumer would anticipate finding the bone. They declare in effect that the bone is natural to the dish, therefore the dish is fit for consumption. The majority never explain why this should be the rule, when it is universally held that in the analogous case of a sharp bit of wire in processed food, liability occurs under both the implied warranty of fitness and the theory of strict liability for defective consumer products.

Nor does the majority reject…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Suvada v. White Motor Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. CappsTexas Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.California Supreme Court · 1936

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API