Kneibel v. RRM ENTERPRISES

OPINION

HARTEN, Judge.

Appellant Leo Kneibel challenges summary judgment dismissing his claims for damages allegedly sustained while eating at respondent McDuffs Restaurant. Because Kneibel could not identify the hard object which allegedly broke his tooth, the district court concluded that his claim of injury caused by a defective food product is based on speculation. We affirm.

FACTS

On October 21, 1989, Kneibel and his wife ate dinner at McDuffs. Kneibel testified by deposition that he ordered barbecued spareribs. He did not know whether the ribs were pork or beef. He did anticipate the…