## Facts

- Bryson Pillars purchased a plug of chewing tobacco manufactured by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
- The tobacco reached Pillars through intermediaries, and Pillars had no contract with the manufacturer.
- The plug allegedly contained a human toe (or part of a toe).
- After chewing the tobacco, Pillars became ill and claimed injury from the contamination.
- Pillars sued the manufacturer and another defendant in the distribution chain for personal injuries.
- The trial court directed a verdict for the manufacturer, removing that claim from the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether a chewing-tobacco manufacturer owes a duty of reasonable care to an ultimate consumer, despite lack of contractual privity, when the product is intended to be placed in the mouth and is contaminated with a harmful foreign object.
2. Whether the extreme nature of the contamination permits an inference of negligent manufacture sufficient to submit the claim to the jury.
3. Whether liability against the non-manufacturing defendant should stand on the same record.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the directed verdict for R.J. Reynolds and allowed the negligence claim against the manufacturer to proceed.
- The court treated chewing tobacco as sufficiently analogous to products consumed through the mouth to justify an exception to the no-privity limitation on manufacturer liability.
- The court affirmed the judgment as to the other defendant.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer may be liable in negligence to an ultimate consumer for injuries caused by a dangerously contaminated product, even without contractual privity, where public policy supports a direct duty to protect health.
- The no-privity limitation was subject to recognized exceptions for products whose ordinary use makes consumers’ health depend on the product’s purity.
- Products intended to be placed in the mouth and used in a manner implicating bodily health can fall within the public-policy exception even if not classified as “food” or “drug.”
- The presence of an extraordinary foreign object in a sealed or manufactured product may support a circumstantial inference of negligent manufacture sufficient to reach the jury.

## Conclusion

The court held that a chewing-tobacco manufacturer can owe a negligence duty directly to ultimate consumers when the product’s intended oral use makes safety depend on purity, and that a directed verdict was improper where the alleged contamination supported an inference of negligent manufacture.


Pillars v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 78 So. 365 (Miss. 1918)