Legal Opinion
Evart v. Suli
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 15, 1989No. B032334PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BOREN, J.
The question presented by this appeal is whether, as a matter of law, a plaintiff is barred from recovering for injuries she sustained as a result of biting into a piece of bone hidden inside a hamburger patty.
Facts
Plaintiff/appellant Patrice F. Evart broke a tooth when she bit into a “hard substance” in a hamburger sandwich at a restaurant. Although Evart does not know precisely what type of hard substance the hamburger contained (because she swallowed it), for purposes of this appeal it is agreed that the substance was a piece of beef bone. Defendants/respondents East Coast…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
- Clinkscales v. CarverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Zabner v. Howard Johnson's, IncorporatedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967
- Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1983
- Silva v. F. W. Woolworth Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Mexicali Rose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Ford v. Miller Meat Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- Mathews v. Maysville Seafoods, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Burns v. McDonald's Corp.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.