## Facts

- Stanley Pinkham, a line cook at a restaurant, ate a hot turkey sandwich made with a “boneless” turkey product manufactured by Cargill.
- During or immediately after eating, Pinkham experienced sudden, severe upper abdominal pain and was taken to a hospital.
- Physicians diagnosed an esophageal perforation; an endoscopy identified a small perforation and a nearby food bolus containing fragments of bony or cartilaginous material.
- The gastroenterologist testified that esophageal perforations are typically caused by aggressive retching/vomiting or by an ingested foreign body, and opined Pinkham’s perforation was secondary to a foreign body.
- The summary-judgment record included evidence that restaurant staff occasionally found bone pieces in the “boneless” turkey product.
- The Estate sued Cargill in strict products liability, alleging the turkey was defective and caused the injury.
- The trial court granted Cargill summary judgment, reasoning the evidence did not show defect and causation and that bone in turkey did not make the product defective as a matter of law under “foreign–natural” and “reasonable expectation” approaches.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact that the “boneless” turkey product was defective under Maine strict liability law.
2. Whether circumstantial evidence and medical testimony permitted an inference that a defect in the product caused Pinkham’s esophageal perforation without identifying a specific retained bone fragment.
3. What test governs defect claims for food products containing natural substances: the foreign–natural doctrine or the reasonable-expectations test.

## Decision

- The court vacated summary judgment for Cargill and remanded.
- It rejected the foreign–natural doctrine and adopted the reasonable-expectations test for determining whether food is defective in strict liability.
- It held that, viewing the record favorably to the Estate, a fact-finder could reasonably infer both defect and causation from the circumstances, including the “boneless” marketing, evidence of bone fragments, and medical testimony tying the perforation to an ingested foreign body.
- It concluded that whether bone fragments in a product sold as “boneless” are within reasonable consumer expectations is ordinarily for the fact-finder, not resolvable as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A food product is defective in strict liability if it contains a substance a reasonable consumer would not expect to encounter in that type of product, considering its processing and labeling (reasonable-expectations test).
- The foreign–natural doctrine is not the governing rule; the focus is consumer expectations rather than whether the substance is “natural” to the food’s source.
- A plaintiff may prove defect and causation by circumstantial evidence; a defect may be inferred when the incident is the kind that ordinarily results from a product defect and other reasonable causes are sufficiently excluded.
- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor; if a reasonable fact-finder could infer defect and causation, judgment as a matter of law is improper.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury could find a “boneless” turkey product defective if bone fragments were not reasonably expected and could infer defect and causation from medical and circumstantial evidence, so summary judgment for the manufacturer was vacated and the case remanded.


Estate of Pinkham v. Cargill, Inc., 55 A.3d 1 (Me. 2012)