18 of 72 DOCUMENTS

STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC. v. Etsel C. FERGUSON

No. 8 Div. 914
Supreme Court of Alabama
271 Ala. 120; 122 So. 2d 356; 1959 Ala. LEXIS 650
August 13, 1959
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Rehearing Denied August 18, 1960.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant food company appealed the decision from the trial court (Alabama), which
entered judgment for plaintiff consumer after the consumer ate the pork and beans manufactured by defendant and
became violently ill.
OVERVIEW: The consumer claimed that the food company was negligent in the preparation of its can of pork and
beans. The consumer claimed that he ate the pork and beans and became violently ill. There was a verdict and judgment
for the consumer for $ 4,500. The food company challenged the averment as a mere conclusion. The court held that the
averment that the pork and beans were spoiled was not a mere conclusion of the pleader and neither was the averment
that they were contaminated, impure, stale, rotten or containing foreign matter a mere conclusion of the pleader. The
food company contended that the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon were not sustained by the great
preponderance of the evidence and that the judgment was excessive. The court saw no good reason to set out the
tendencies of the evidence. On the one hand, the evidence tended to support the theory that the consumer was made ill
by eating the product. On the other hand, the court noted that the evidence tended to prove that his illness was the result
of an automobile accident at a prior time. The court affirmed the judgment and found that the issue was determined by
the jury.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the consumer for food poisoning because no assignment of
error warranted reversal.
CORE TERMS: beans, pork, new trial, assignments of error, eating, contaminated, violently, spoiled, impure, rotten,
stale, food poisoning, human consumption, preponderance, preparation, pleader, sick, cause of action, guilty of
negligence, disturbing, excessive, food, evidence tended, written charges, correctness, demurrer, consumed, to-wit
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Torts > Negligence > General Overview
[HN1] In every cause of action grounded solely on negligence, there are three essential elements to a right of recovery:
First, a duty owing from defendant to the plaintiff; second, a breach of that duty; and third, an injury to the plaintiff in
Page 1
consequence of that breach.
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > General Overview
[HN2] Verdicts are presumed to be correct and no ground for a new trial is more carefully scrutinized or more rigidly
limited than that the verdict is against the evidence.
Civil Procedure > Trials > Jury Trials > Right to Jury Trial
Civil Procedure > Judgments > Relief From Judgment > Motions for New Trials
[HN3] The power of the trial court to set aside a verdict should be exercised only when it positively and affirmatively
appears that the substantial ends of justice require that a verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted.
COUNSEL: J. A. Lee, Scottsboro, for appellant.
The verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon are not sustained by the evidence in this case, and defendant's
motion for new trial should have been granted because of the insufficiency of the evidence. Code 1940, Tit. 7, 276;
Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Slaton, 240 Ala. 560, 200 So. 564; Chero-Cola Bottling Co., Andalusia v. Watford, 31
Ala.App. 493, 19 So.2d 77; Reichert Milling Co. v. George, 26 Ala.App. 417, 162 So. 383. The verdict of the jury and
the judgment thereon are excessive and defendant's motion for new trial on this ground should have been granted. Code,
Tit. 7, 811; Yarbrough v. Mallory, 225 Ala. 579, 144 So. 447; Veitch v. Southern R. Co., 220 Ala. 436, 126 So. 845.
Defendant's demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Williams, 251 Ala. 516, 38
So.2d 334; Regional Agricultural Credit Corp. of Washington, D. C. v. Hendley, 251 Ala. 261, 37 So.2d 97; Gaines v.
Harmon, 246 Ala. 307, 20 So.2d 503; H. M. Price Hardware Co. v. Meyer, 224 Ala. 35, 138 So. 543; McCarty v.
Williams, 212 Ala. 232, 102 So. 133; J. P. Wolf Co. v. Johnson, [***2] 212 Ala. 39, 101 So. 655; Ala. Coca-Cola
Bottling Co. v. Causey, 28 Ala.App. 115, 180 So. 588. Defendant should have been allowed to show the absence of
other complaints of alleged food poisoning from defendant's pork and beans in 1955 and 1956. Louis Pizitz Dry Goods
Co. v. Waldrop, 237 Ala. 208, 186 So. 151. The complaint charges defendant with negligence and trial was hadon
defendant's plea in short by consent, and under the issues and the evidence in the case, defendant's requested written
charge No. 8, with reference to plaintiff's contributory negligence, should have been given. Salter v. Carlisle, 206 Ala.
163, 90 So. 283; Birmingham Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 678, 89 So. 64, 17 A.L.R. 667; Birmingham
Ry. Light & Power Co. v. Bynum, 139 Ala. 389, 36 So. 736.
Andy Hamlet, Jr., W. Loy Campbell and H. R. Campbell, Scottsboro, for appellee.
Verdicts are presumed to be correct. The verdict here is supported by evidence. Ruling of the court below on motion for
new trial should not be disturbed. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; 2 Ala.Dig., Appeal & Error, key 1005(4);
Thomas v. Rogers, 256 Ala. 53, 53 So.2d 736; Yarbrough v. Mallory, 225 Ala. 579, 144 So. 447; [***3] Florence
Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Sullivan, 259 Ala. 56, 65 So.2d 169. The complaint is sufficient against demurrer.
Greenwood Cafe v. Lovinggood, 197 Ala. 34, 72 So. 354; Kirkland v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 233 Ala. 404,
171 So. 735; Birmingham Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 678, 89 So. 64, 17 A.L.R. 667; 10 Ala.Dig. Food,
key 25. Evidence of absence of other complaints was inadmissible. Hill Grocery Co. v. Hameker, 18 Ala.App. 84, 89
So. 850; Greenwood Cafe v. Lovinggood, supra; Winter-Loeb Grocery Co. v. Boykin, 203 Ala. 187, 82 So. 437;
Hooper Cafe Co. v. Henderson, 223 Ala. 579, 137 So. 419. A charge not supported by the evidence is properly refused.
Jordan v. Capers, 222 Ala. 197, 131 So. 557.
JUDGES: Livingston, Chief Justice. Lawson, Stakely and Merrill, JJ., concur.
OPINION BY: LIVINGSTON
OPINION
[*121] [**357] This action is in tort for personal injuries. The complaint contained one count to which demurrers
Page 2
271 Ala. 120, *; 122 So. 2d 356, **;
1959 Ala. LEXIS 650, ***1
were overruled, and [*122] charged that the defendant was negligent in the preparation of its canned goods, i. e., pork
and beans, which plaintiff purchased from an intermediate dealer, and which he ate shortly thereafter and became
violently [***4] ill. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 4500. The appellant's motion for a new trial
was overruled, and it appealed.
This court has considered numerous cases touching the duty of care required of manufacturers of food products put up
in packages or bottles to be sold intact, and their liability to the ultimate consumer for negligence in putting such
products on the market in a condition unfit for human consumption, or dangerous to health because of the presence of
foreign matter. Reichert Milling Co. v. George, 230 Ala. 3, 162 So. 393; Try-Me Beverage Co. v. Harris, 217 Ala. 302,
116 So. 147; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Crook, 222 Ala. 369, 132 So. 898; Collins Baking Co. v. Savage, 227 Ala. 408,
150 So. 336; Birmingham Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 678, 89 So. 64, 17 A.L.R. 667; Whistle Bottling
Co. v. Searson, 207 Ala. 387, 92 So. 657; Jefferson Dairy Co. v. Williams, 215 Ala. 559, 112 So. 125; Kirkland v. Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 233 Ala. 404, 171 So. 735.
The appellant insists on several grounds of demurrer interposed to the complaint. In pertinent part, the complaint is as
follows:
"The plaintiff, Etsel C. Ferguson, claims of the defendant, [***5] Stokely-Van Camp, a Corporation, the sum of Fifteen Thousand
($ 15,000.00) Dollars as damages for this that on, to-wit, January 23, 1956 and during the month of January, 1956, the Defendant
was engaged in the preparation, sale, distribution and canning of beans and other food stuff for the purpose of human consumption
and that in the course of its business the Defendant distributed or sold case lots of Van Camp's Pork and Beans in sealed containers,
which were delivered, or caused to be delivered, and sold to Claud Sartin, a merchant doing business as Claude Sartin Grocery
Store in Jackson County, Alabama. And the plaintiff avers that on, to-wit, the 23rd of January, 1956 between the hours of twelve
and six o'clock P.M. he purchased a can of said Van Camp's Pork and Beans in the said Claude Sartin Grocery Store near
Stevenson, Jackson County, Alabama, and that said beans were consumed by him immediately thereafter being purchased. And the
Plaintiff avers that said Pork and Beans were so negligently prepared by the Defendant in the operation of its business of mixing,
preparing and sealing said Pork and Beans for human consumption, that the Pork and Beans sold to the Plaintiff as aforesaid,
[***6] was spoiled, contaminated, impure, stale, rotten or containing foreign matter to such an extent that as a result of eating said
Pork and Beans, the Plaintiff became violently sick and ill and nauseated, suffered food poisoning and gastritis, * * *
* * *
"And the Plaintiff avers that all of his said injuries were suffered as a proximate result of the Defendant's negligence in its
preparation of the Pork and Beans sold by them and consumed by the Plaintiff, * * *"
As we understand it, it is argued by the appellant that the averment that the pork and beans were "spoiled, contaminated,
impure, stale, [**358] rotten or containing foreign matter to such an extent that as a result of eating said Pork and
Beans, the Plaintiff became violently sick and ill," etc., contains disjunctive alternate averments, and are no better than
the weakest alternative, and that the averment that the pork and beans were spoiled, contaminated, impure, stale, rotten
or containing foreign matter to such an extent that as a result of eating said pork and beans the plaintiff became
violently sick and ill, etc., is a mere conclusion of the pleader.
[*123] There is no merit in this insistence. The averment [***7] that the pork and beans were spoiled is not a mere
conclusion of the pleader, neither is the averment that they were contaminated, impure, stale, rotten or containing
foreign matter a mere conclusion of the pleader.
[HN1] In every cause of action grounded solely on negligence, there are three essential elements to a right of recovery:
First, a duty owing from defendant to the plaintiff; second, a breach of that duty; and third, an injury to the plaintiff in
consequence of that breach. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Smith, 171 Ala. 251, 55 So. 170; Alabama Baptist
Hospital Board v. Carter, 226 Ala. 109, 145 So. 443; Southern Railway Co. v. Simmons, 237 Ala. 246, 186 So. 566;
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Campbell, 32 Ala. App. 348, 26 So. 2d 124; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v.
Raney, 34 Ala. App. 125, 37 So. 2d 150. The complaint stated a cause of action.
Three other assignments of error will be treated together because they are controlled by the same principles. (1) It is
Page 3
271 Ala. 120, *121; 122 So. 2d 356, **357;
1959 Ala. LEXIS 650, ***3
contended that the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon are not sustained by the great preponderance of
the evidence, and the court erred in denying appellant's motion to set aside the verdict and [***8] the judgment entered
thereon and to grant unto appellant a new trial. (2) The verdict of the jury is so against the preponderance of the
evidence, after allowing all reasonable presumptions of its correctness, as to show that it is wrong and unjust, and the
court erred in denying appellant's motion to set aside the verdict and the judgment entered thereon and to grant unto
appellant a new trial, and (3) that the verdict of the jury, and the judgment thereon, are excessive.
The sole question presented by these three assignments of error is whether or not the verdict and the judgment are
supported by the preponderance of the evidence. [HN2] Verdicts are presumed to be correct and no ground for a new
trial is more carefully scrutinized or more rigidly limited than that the verdict is against the evidence. Cobb v. Malone,
92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738. It is true that the power of the trial court to set aside the verdict is inherent and is essential to
prevent irreparable injustice in cases where a verdict wholly wrong is the result of inadvertence, forgetfulness, or
intentional or capricious disregard of the testimony, or of bias or prejudice on the part of juries, which sometimes
occurs. In the [***9] exercise of this power, courts should be careful not to infringe the right of trial by jury and should
bear in mind that it is the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, to weigh the testimony
and find facts from that testimony. [HN3] The power of [**359] the trial court to set aside a verdict should be
exercised only when it positively and affirmatively appears that the substantial ends of justice require that a verdict
should be set aside and a new trial granted.
In Yarbrough v. Mallory, 225 Ala. 579, 144 So. 447, 449, it was said:
"The basic reason for disturbing the verdict of a jury because of excessive or inadequate damages is precisely the same as for
disturbing it because not supported by the evidence, or because opposed to the clear and convincing weight of the evidence. In the
one case the inquiry is directed to one feature of the verdict; the damages awarded."
The foregoing being the principles by which a trial court should be controlled, it is to be observed that these principles
apply with much greater force to the exercise of this power by an appellate court. When the presiding judge of the trial
court refuses to grant a new trial, [***10] the correctness of the verdict is thereby strengthened.
There is no merit in the foregoing three assignments of error.
Assignment of Error No. 5 is as follows:
[*124] "The Court erred in refusing to receive the evidence offered by appellant as to the absence of other food poisoning claims
from Stokely-Van Camp pork and beans in 1955 and 1956."
Clearly, the fact that no other person had made claims of food poisoning from eating Stokely-Van Camp pork and
beans in 1955-56 was not evidence to show exercise of care on the part of defendant, or that defendant was not guilty of
negligence. Hill Grocery Co. v. Hameker, 18 Ala. App. 84, 89 So. 850; Greenwood Cafe v. Lovinggood, 197 Ala. 34,
72 So. 354. There is no merit in this assignment of error. Winter-Loeb Grocery Co. v. Boykin, 203 Ala. 187, 82 So. 437.
The appellant insists that the refusal of written charges 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 constituted reversible error. These charges are
abstract or state erroneous propositions of law. Moreover, the principles of law involved in the case were adequately
covered by the court's oral charge, and the refusal of these charges was without error.
Assignment of Error No. 11 is as follows: [***11]
"The Court erred in refusing appellant's requested written charge No. 8," which reads
"Gentlemen of the Jury, I charge you that if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff, Etsel C. Ferguson,
was, on the occasion complained of, himself guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to his sickness, youcannot find a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Etsel C. Ferguson."
Page 4
271 Ala. 120, *123; 122 So. 2d 356, **358;
1959 Ala. LEXIS 650, ***7
It is elementary that pleading without proof has the same effect as proof without proper pleading. A careful review of
the record fails to show any evidence whatever of contributory negligence and the charge was, therefore, abstract and its
refusal was not erroneous.
We see no good reason to here set out the tendencies of the evidence. On the one hand, the evidence tended to support
the theory that plaintiff was made ill by eating the product of the appellant. On the other hand, the evidence tended to
prove that his illness was the result of an automobile accident at a prior time. Suffice it to say, the evidence was in
conflict, and it was a case for the jury.
No argued assignment of error merits a reversal of the cause and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Page 5
271 Ala. 120, *124; 122 So. 2d 356, **359;
1959 Ala. LEXIS 650, ***11