Facts
- Elsie M. Jackson bought a sealed can of “Katydids,” a chocolate-covered pecan-caramel candy manufactured by Nestle-Beich, Inc.
- Jackson alleged she bit into a candy and broke a tooth on a hard pecan shell embedded in it.
- Jackson sued on two theories: (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and (2) strict products liability.
- Nestle moved for summary judgment under the foreign-natural doctrine, arguing that because the shell was natural to pecans, there could be no liability.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Nestle on both counts.
Issues
- Whether Illinois should apply the foreign-natural doctrine to bar recovery when the injurious substance in food is natural to an ingredient, or instead apply a consumer reasonable-expectation test.
- Whether summary judgment was proper where liability turned on whether an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect the substance in the product as sold.
Decision
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s reversal of summary judgment for Nestle.
- The court rejected the foreign-natural doctrine for Illinois food-injury cases.
- The court adopted a reasonable-expectation test for both implied warranty and strict products liability claims involving substances in food.
- The court held that the presence of a “natural” substance does not categorically defeat liability; the proper question is whether an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect the substance in the specific food product and form.
- Because that inquiry was fact-dependent, summary judgment based solely on the foreign-natural doctrine was improper.
Legal Principles
- In food-product injury cases, liability does not turn on whether the injurious substance is “foreign” or “natural” to an ingredient.
- Under the reasonable-expectation test, liability may exist if an ordinary consumer would not reasonably expect to find the substance in the product as marketed and sold.
- For strict products liability, the relevant defect inquiry centers on whether the product is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary consumer in light of reasonable expectations.
- For implied warranty of merchantability, the relevant inquiry centers on whether the product is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, assessed in light of reasonable consumer expectations.
- Questions about feasibility of removing naturally occurring substances and related manufacturer conduct generally bear on whether the product was unreasonably dangerous or unmerchantable, not on a categorical bar to recovery.
Conclusion
Illinois abandoned the foreign-natural doctrine and required courts to assess injuries from substances in food under a reasonable-expectation standard, making consumer expectations—rather than a formal “naturalness” classification—the controlling measure for warranty and strict liability claims and typically leaving the issue for the factfinder.