Kolarik v. Cory Int'l Corp. - 721 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2006)

Rule:

In the case of processed foods, consumers may develop reasonable expectations that certain components of food products in their natural state that serve to impede human consumption will be removed. 

Facts:

Appellant consumer Douglas C. Kolarik relying on theories of negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranty, sought to recover damages from appellees Cory International Corporation, Italica Imports, and Tee Pee Olives Inc., importers and wholesalers of pitted olives grown by various Spanish companies. Appellant alleged that he used several of these olives in preparation of a salad and when eating the salad, he bit down on an olive pit or pit fragment. The district court granted summary judgment to appellees in the product liability action. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees in the product liability action?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court was satisfied that it did not appear that the appellees were in any manner negligent in the processing of the olives that contained the pit that caused harm to the consumer. However, the supreme court concluded, that a genuine issue of material fact did exist with respect to the appellant’s claim that the appellees were negligent in not warning against the possible presence of pits or pit fragments in the jar of olives. The court held that the quality control officer testified in his deposition that the pitting process was not one hundred percent effective. He indicated that the presence of an occasional pit or pit fragment in the stuffed olives was inevitable because the machine that did the pitting would fail to remove a pit if the olive had an abnormal shape. Thus, given that circumstance, a trier of fact could have found that reasonable care by a wholesale seller of stuffed olives would have included providing a warning on the label that pits or pit fragments might be encountered. A claim based on that theory should have survived summary judgment. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's ruling with regard to the theories of strict liability, and express and implied warranty, but as to the alleged failure to warn, the decision was reversed and the case was remanded.