## Facts

- Karen Schafer ate a pumpkin muffin served at a Perkins restaurant in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
- After swallowing a bite, she immediately felt sharp throat pain and a choking sensation and believed something was stuck in her throat.
- She went to the emergency room the same day; a physician reported a cut in her throat, though no foreign object was observed.
- Two days later she returned to the emergency room, was diagnosed with a throat infection, and was hospitalized for three days; she testified recovery took about three months.
- Schafer could not identify the specific object that caused the injury; the remaining muffin was not preserved.
- She sued the restaurant alleging the muffin was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to consumers and caused damages including medical expenses, lost earnings, pain, disability, and emotional distress.
- The restaurant filed a third-party claim against the muffin supplier/manufacturer.

## Issues

1. In a defective-food negligence action, must a plaintiff identify the specific injuring object in the food to establish a prima facie case and survive summary judgment?
2. May defect and causation be proven by circumstantial evidence where the injuring object is unavailable?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the restaurant and supplier and remanded.
- The court held a plaintiff is not categorically required to identify the precise injuring object to make a prima facie negligence claim in a food-injury case.
- The circumstantial evidence presented (immediate symptoms after eating, medical evidence of a throat laceration, and subsequent infection) could permit a reasonable jury to infer defect and causation.
- Because reasonable factfinders could differ on whether a defect in the muffin caused the injury, the dispute was for the jury rather than disposition on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- In Minnesota defective-food injury cases, a plaintiff may prove defect and causation through circumstantial evidence.
- A prima facie negligence showing does not require proof of the claim to a certainty or elimination of all other possible causes at the summary judgment stage.
- Summary judgment is improper where the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to infer that the food contained an unexpected injuring condition and that this condition caused the plaintiff’s injury.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that failure to identify the specific object in allegedly defective food does not bar a negligence claim where circumstantial evidence could allow a jury to find the food was defective and that the defect caused the injury, requiring the case to proceed beyond summary judgment.


Schafer v. JLC Food Sys., Inc., 695 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. 2005)