Legal Opinion

Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1992No. S012707PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LUCAS, C. J.

We granted review to consider the continuing vitality of Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co. (1936) 6 Cal.2d 674 [59 P.2d 144] (hereafter Mix), which held a restaurant owner was not liable in tort or implied warranty for injury to a patron caused by a chicken bone served in a chicken pie.1 (Id. at p. 682.) Mix distinguished bones and other substances “natural” to certain types of food, from “foreign substances” (such as a nail, wire or glass), which Mix determined cannot be anticipated by a reasonable consumer.2 Mix concluded that “[b]ones which are natural to the type of meat…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Nally v. Grace Community ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1939

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2000
  2. Alcaraz v. VeceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Simeon v. DoeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1993
  4. Porteous v. St. Ann's Cafe & DeliSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1998
  5. Evraets v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1994

22 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