This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Stanley Pinkham consumed a hot turkey sandwich during his break as a line cook at Dysart's Truck Stop and Restaurant. D manufactured the boneless turkey product in the sandwich, and the kitchen staff at Dysart's occasionally found pieces of bone in that turkey product. After eating the sandwich, Stanley experienced severe and sudden pain in his upper abdominal area and thought that he might be suffering from a heart attack. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital. Donald M. Clough, M.D., initially evaluated him and determined that he most likely had an 'esophageal tear or perforation.' Unable to locate the injury, Clough called in Scott D. Stern, D.O., a specialist in gastroenterology, to perform an upper endoscopy. Stern discovered a small perforation in the esophagus as well as a small food bolus containing fragments of bony or cartilaginous material. Stern did not remove any food product or other substance from Stanly. After Stern located the site of the injury, Clough called in Felix Hernandez, M.D., to perform thoracic surgery to repair the esophageal perforation. In his deposition, Stern noted that there were small, white cartilaginous fragments that appeared to be bone fragments in the food bolus, measuring no more than one or two millimeters in size. Stern stated there was a 'perforation secondary to a foreign body.' Stern noted that even if there was a pre-existing condition that made his esophagus more susceptible to injury, an additional factor would most likely have to be present for this type of injury to occur. Stern explained that the additional factor could be aggressive retching or vomiting, or a foreign body. P filed a complaint naming D and Poultry Products of Maine, Inc. as defendants. D filed a motion for summary judgment. P relied on three pieces of evidence that the court excluded as inadmissible hearsay. The excluded evidence comprised an affidavit by Cheryl Pinkham, Pinkham's former spouse; an affidavit by Tina O'Donnell, Pinkham's daughter; and a transcribed copy of a recorded conversation between Pinkham and an insurance adjuster. The affidavits asserted that Hernandez told the affiants immediately after the surgery that a bone or 'fragments' caused the esophageal injury. The court granted D's motion, stating that Maine has not yet established which test to use when evaluating a strict liability claim for an allegedly defective food product pursuant to Maine's strict liability statute, 14 M.R.S. § 221. The court evaluated the motion under both the traditional 'foreign-natural' doctrine and the modern 'reasonable expectation' test. It held that the contents of the food bolus discovered in the esophagus did not demonstrate that the product was defective as a matter of law. The court determined that, because P failed to show that the injury was not caused solely by something other than the defective food product, P could not benefit from an inference that D's processed turkey product was defective. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.