## Facts

- Hunt bought a cherry pie from a vending machine owned and maintained by Ferguson-Paulus Enterprises for immediate consumption.
- When Hunt bit into the pie, he struck a cherry pit and broke a tooth.
- Hunt sued for damages, alleging breach of an implied warranty that the pie was fit for human consumption.
- The case was tried to the court without a jury, and the court entered a general finding for the defendant.
- Hunt requested special findings that cherry pies are normally pitless and that a consumer would not reasonably expect a pit, and a corresponding conclusion of law; the trial court refused.
- Hunt appealed, challenging the general finding for the defendant and the refusal to enter his requested special findings and conclusion.

## Issues

1. Whether the presence of a cherry pit in a cherry pie sold for immediate consumption established a breach of the implied warranty of fitness for human consumption under Oregon law.
2. Whether the trial court erred by entering a general finding for the defendant and refusing Hunt’s requested special findings and proposed conclusion regarding reasonable consumer expectations.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
- The court treated the question whether the pie was “not reasonably fit for human consumption” because of the pit as a fact question for the trier of fact on this record.
- The trial court’s refusal to adopt Hunt’s proposed special findings and conclusion was consistent with its general finding for the defendant and did not show reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Under ORS 72.3150 (UCC § 2-315), an implied warranty of fitness applies when goods are sold for a purpose known to the seller; breach requires proof the goods were not reasonably fit for that purpose.
- In food-injury cases, courts have used both (a) a foreign-substance versus natural-substance approach and (b) a reasonable-expectation approach; this case did not adopt a categorical rule as dispositive.
- Whether a natural component (such as a cherry pit) renders food not reasonably fit for human consumption may be determined as a question of fact, subject to deferential appellate review when supported by the record.
- A general finding for the defendant may stand where the plaintiff fails to establish that the product’s condition constitutes unfitness under the implied warranty standard.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense judgment on an implied-warranty claim arising from a tooth broken on a cherry pit in a vending-machine cherry pie, holding that unfitness and consumer expectation were factual determinations for the trial court and were not shown to be erroneous as a matter of law on appeal.


Hunt v. Ferguson-Paulus Enters., 243 Or. 546, 415 P.2d 13 (Or. 1966)