Cansco Negligence Defense
A water pipe burst in the basement of Superfast, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The plumbing contractor’s workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After cleaning up, Superfast put the goods on special sale.
Four weeks later Susan was shopping in Superfast. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned goods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: “Damaged Cans – Half Price.”
Susan was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased dented two cans of chicken, packed by Cansco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Susan prepared a chicken pot pie which she and Guest ate. Both became ill and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the chicken being unfit for human consumption. The cans of chicken consumed by Susan and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen.
Susan asserts a claim against Cansco based on negligence, what results? Although Guest may have a case against Superfast, and the plumbing workmen may have some responsibility, you are only to discuss Susan’s claim against Cansco. What are the defenses which Cansco may raise?
Find three cases that support Cansco’s defense in this case. Write a short essay (minimum 500 word) defending Cansco. Cite to your supporting cases by comparing and contrasting the similarities and/or differences between those cases and Cansco’s case.
Cansco Negligence Defense
The negligence claims on Cansco by Susan should be evaluated based on the four elements that need to be proven to make a negligence suit successfully. The four essential elements for negligence suits required include duty, breach, cause and harm. An analysis of the negligence is important for the plaintiff to establish the connection between the defendant and the duty. The actions of the defendant are analyzed by determining whether a reasonable person would act the same in the same circumstances that the defendant was. Susan claims have to prove the responsibility that Cansco had in the packaging of the canned chicken when it reaches the final consumer. The contents of the cans should be pure content and confirmed to be fit for human consumption. The law states that the manufacturer of food, medicine, and other kinds of stuff where the distributed cannot inspect for any defect is liable with the legal duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
In defense, Cansco can argue that the cans of chicken were interfered with and damaged as indicated by the seller, Superfast. The special sale for the damaged canned goods happens to have the canned chicken from packed by Cansco. The distributor that is Superfast should be liable for selling the damaged Cans, they were dented and could contaminate the chicken from the prepacked state. The Packaging company, Cansco, can argue that the cans were fit for human consumption in the new without dents cans.
Understanding the position that Cansco and Susan stand in the case, Cansco can defend the case by the use of the concept of contributory negligence. A similar case involved Matthews v. Campbell Soup Company, 1974, where the plaintiff sought negligence in the manufacture and labeling of products. The court was bound to apply the principles of product liability and negligence. It is understood that the manufacturer of food products warrant are meant to credit that the products are wholesome and fit for consumption. The court followed the principle that the seller that sells any product in a defective condition that is dangerous to the user is subject to liability for physical harm that is caused to the final consumer.
The Susan v. Cansco case is different in that the defective product sold to the plaintiff was dented in the place of a distributor, Superfast and not Cansco, the packing company. Cansco may use the fact that the canned chicken was declared damaged before the plaintiff bought it from the distributor. Contributory negligence is an appropriate defense for Cansco, which should be attributed to the distributor, Superfast and the ultimate consumer, Susan.
Contributory negligence on the part of the distributor and the plaintiff lead to the illness. On the part of the distributor, Superfast, when the canned good was damaged, and the canned chicken dented, it was their responsibility to discard the cans of chicken. The offer to sell them at half price in different tables served as an incentive to lure Susan to buying more. On the part of Susan, she was negligent to the fact that the chicken cans were damaged and dented. The assorted canned good was dirty and dented as the sign indicated in the distributor shop, Superfast. Following the fact of the case that the cans that were consumed by Susan and Guest were from the case that was knocked over by workmen, it is clear that the packaging company, Cansco, is not liable with the damage and denting of the cans that potentially contaminated the contents making them unfit for human consumption.
References
Ausness, R. C. (2018). Sailing under False Colors: The Continuing Presence of Negligence Principles in Strict Products Liability Law. U. Dayton L. Rev., 43, 265.
Matthews v. Campbell soup company, 380 F. Supp. 1061 (S.D. Tex. 1974). (n.d.). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/380/1061/1457860/
Rajapakse, P. J. (2016). Contamination of food and drinks: Product liability in Australia. Deakin L. Rev., 21, 45.
