## Facts

- W. B. Matthews bought and ate a can of Campbell Soup Company’s “Oyster Stew Soup.”
- While eating, Matthews allegedly injured his teeth and gums on a small hard object in the soup.
- Matthews provided the object to Campbell; it was identified as a small, irregularly shaped oyster pearl.
- Matthews sued in diversity, alleging strict products liability and negligence in manufacture and labeling (including failure to warn).
- Campbell moved for summary judgment, arguing the pearl was a natural component of oysters and that the record lacked evidence of negligence.

## Issues

1. Under Texas products liability law applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, does a naturally occurring oyster pearl in canned oyster stew make the product defective and unreasonably dangerous so as to impose strict liability?
2. Does the summary-judgment record contain sufficient evidence of negligent manufacture, inspection, or labeling/failure to warn to create a genuine issue of material fact?

## Decision

- The court granted Campbell’s motion for summary judgment on both strict liability and negligence.
- The court held that, as a matter of law, a naturally occurring oyster pearl in oyster stew did not render the product defective or unreasonably dangerous.
- The court held that Matthews produced no evidence creating a triable issue that Campbell negligently manufactured, processed, inspected, labeled, or failed to warn.

## Legal Principles

- In a diversity action, the federal court applies the forum state’s substantive products-liability and negligence law.
- Under Texas law adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, strict liability requires a product defect that makes the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
- A hard object natural to the food ingredient (as opposed to a foreign object) may be treated as an expected characteristic of the food and therefore not a § 402A “defect” as a matter of law.
- Negligence requires evidence of breach of a duty of reasonable care in processing/manufacture/inspection or in warnings; absent evidence of substandard practices or a duty to warn of an ordinary, natural characteristic, summary judgment is proper.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for Campbell Soup Company because an oyster pearl was a natural component associated with oysters and did not make oyster stew unreasonably dangerous under Texas strict-liability doctrine, and because Matthews offered no evidence that Campbell acted negligently in manufacturing, inspecting, labeling, or warning about the product.


Matthews v. Campbell Soup Co., 380 F. Supp. 1061 (S.D. Tex. 1974)