Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1992No. S012707Published

1Dissent

ARABIAN, J.—I dissent.

Plainly stated, the rule announced by the majority is this: If a restaurant patron becomes ill as the result of ingesting a cow’s eye inside a hamburger patty there may not be an assertion that the seller breached an implied warranty of merchantability, i.e., that the food was unfit for human consumption, because the injury-producing substance (the cow’s eye) was “natural” to the product served and therefore “reasonably” to be expected by the average consumer. However, if the same hamburger contains a pebble or a noxious insect, a claim of unfitness will lie because the…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Race v. . KrumNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
  5. Zabner v. Howard Johnson's, IncorporatedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967

25 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