MATTIE LOMAX, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
MATTIE LOMAX, APPELLANT,
PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
37 So. 3d 312
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2010)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreseeability Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court
The order under review is affirmed. As Doyle v. Pillsbury Co., 476 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1985), explains:
A producer or retailer of food should foresee that a person may well become physically or mentally ill after consuming part of a food product and then discovering a deleterious foreign object, such as an insect or rodent, in presumably wholesome food or drink. The manufacturer or retailer must expect to bear the costs of the resulting injuries.
The same foreseeability is lacking where a person simply observes the foreign object and suffers injury after the observa*313tion. The mere observance of unwholesome food cannot be equated to consuming a portion of the same.... When a claim is based on an inert foreign object in a food product, we continue to require ingestion of a portion of the food before liability arises.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lomax v. Officer Reynolds of the City of Miami Police Dep't & Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 119 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 116 So. 3d 1261, 2013 WL 1943026, at *1 (Fla.2013) (dismissing appeal) Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 118 So. 3d 221, 2013 WL 3196536, at *1 (Fla.2013) (dismissing appeal) Lomax v. Publix Supermkts., Inc., 37 So. 3d 312, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (affirmed) Lomax v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 48 So. 3d 61, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (denying mandamus) Lomax v. Publix Super Mkts. Inc., 83 So. 3d 732, 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (certiorari denied) Lomax v. Publix Supermkts., I…
Authorities Cited
- Doyle v. The Pillsbury Co., 476 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1985)