holding that defendant, as the manufacturer and vendor of sausage, was liable to consumer plaintiffs for the injuries caused to them by the contaminated and poisonous substance in the sausage at the time the defendants manufactured and sold it, even though defendant was not negligent in processing it
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendant, as the manufacturer and vendor of sausage, was liable to consumer plaintiffs for the injuries caused to them by the contaminated and poisonous substance in the sausage at the time the defendants manufactured and sold it, even though defendant was not negligent in processing it
- imposing common-law implied warranty that food products introduced into the chain of commerce are fit for human consumption
- imposing common-law implied warranty that food products introduced into chain of commerce are fit for human consumption
- recognizing the “broad principle of the public policy to protect hu- man health and life”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 787 (1967)
See Jacob E. Decker & Sons v. Capps , 139 Tex. 609, 164 S.W.2d 828, 829 (1942) (implied warranty of the fitness of food for human consumption), superseded by McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc ., 416 S.W.2d 787, 789 (Tex. 1967) (adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A to govern strict liability tort claims for defective products that cause physical harm); Kamarath v. Bennett , 568 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex. 1978)…
The opinion
Mr. Justice Critz
concurring.
I agree to the judgment in this case. In doing so I agree to the holding expressed in the opinion of this Court by Chief Justice Alexander that the manufacturer or processor of food intended for human consumption impliedly warrants that it is free from contamination and fit for human consumption. I think this rule is universal in its application, and applies even to food put up in sealed containers, with or without the name of the manufacturer or processor indicated therein. In fact, I think we committed ourselves- to the above rule in Walker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 131 Texas 57 , 112 S. W. (2d) 170 , cited in Chief Justice Alexander’s opinion in this case. I do not believe that the above rule applies to retailers of food put up in sealed containers, with the name of the manufacturer or processor indicated on such containers. My views on that question are expressed in my dissenting opinion filed in
*623
Cause No. 7733, Griggs Canning Company et al, Appellants, v. Norman Josey et al, Appellees, opinion this day delivered by' this Court.
Opinion delivered July 22, 1942.
Rehearing overruled October 7, 1942.