## Facts

- Coulter bought doughnuts manufactured by American Bakeries from a convenience store.
- Because she had an abscessed tooth, she selected the doughnuts intending to soften them in milk and swallow small pieces rather than chew normally.
- While eating in this manner, she felt an object lodge in her throat.
- Medical evaluation and x-rays revealed a metal wire in her esophagus that originated from the doughnut.
- Coulter sued, alleging the doughnut was unfit for human consumption and asserting breach of implied warranty based on the presence of a harmful foreign substance.
- A jury awarded Coulter $12,500 but, after a comparative-negligence instruction, assigned 80% fault to Coulter and reduced the judgment to $2,500.
- Coulter objected to submission of comparative negligence to the jury and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether comparative negligence is an available defense in an implied-warranty/products-liability claim involving a harmful foreign substance in food.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing on comparative negligence and allowing the jury to apportion fault where the record contained no evidence that Coulter misused the product, used it abnormally, or could reasonably have expected the wire.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment to the extent it reduced Coulter’s recovery based on comparative negligence and remanded.
- The court held that, even if comparative negligence can apply in this category of case, it was improper to submit the defense to the jury without evidentiary support.
- The court found no competent evidence that Coulter’s method of eating was abnormal, unintended, or unforeseeable, or that she could reasonably have anticipated a wire in the doughnut.

## Legal Principles

- In implied-warranty and related product claims involving foreign harmful substances in food, comparative negligence is not automatic and is permitted only when supported by evidence.
- A comparative-negligence theory in this context requires evidence that the consumer either:
  - could reasonably have expected the harmful condition, or
  - used the product in an abnormal, unintended, or unforeseeable manner.
- Absent evidence of consumer misuse or reasonable anticipation of the hazard, giving a comparative-negligence instruction is erroneous and an apportionment of fault cannot stand.
- Consumer expectations are central in foreign-object food cases; a consumer is generally not expected to anticipate an unexpected hazardous object such as metal wire in a baked good.

## Conclusion

The court held that the comparative-negligence instruction improperly reduced the plaintiff’s damages because the evidence did not support a finding that the plaintiff misused the doughnut or should reasonably have expected a metal wire in it, and it reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.


Coulter v. Am. Bakeries Co., 530 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1988)