Barber v. Sam's Club East, Inc., 6:17-cv-00035

In October 2016 Sarah Barber purchased two bags of Taylor Farms "Asian Chopped Salad" from Sam’s Club (Defendants) and served it to herself and family. She discovered a severely damaged mouse carcass in the salad after serving a second helping.
Plaintiffs James, Sarah, and Jared Barber experienced immediate nausea and ongoing physical and psychological effects (vomiting, sleep disturbance, flashbacks).
Complaint alleges Taylor Farms has a history of producing contaminated food, including a salmonella outbreak tied to products sold at Defendants’ stores.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants continued selling Taylor Farms products despite knowledge (actual or constructive) of contamination risks and failed to impose additional safeguards.
Procedural posture: Defendants moved to partially dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) challenging Counts 1 and 2, which assert willful and wanton negligence and gross negligence, respectively. The court considered whether the complaint states plausible claims under Twombly/Iqbal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pleading supports willful and wanton negligence	Plaintiffs allege Defendants knew of repeated contamination incidents by Taylor Farms and consciously disregarded customer safety by continuing to sell the products	Defendants say allegations are legal conclusions lacking factual detail to show conscious disregard or reckless indifference	Court: Allegations plausibly show awareness of danger and conscious disregard; claim survives 12(b)(6) dismissal
Whether pleading supports gross negligence	Plaintiffs allege Defendants knew of contamination history and continued sales, showing utter disregard for safety	Defendants contend Plaintiffs failed to plead facts rising above ordinary negligence to shock fair-minded persons	Court: Whether conduct is gross negligence is typically a jury question; allegations are sufficient to survive dismissal

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2016) (Rule 12(b)(6) does not resolve factual disputes)
Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2000) (court need not accept legal conclusions)
Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2005) (all reasonable inferences drawn for plaintiff at pleading stage)
Cowan v. Hospice Support Care, Inc., 268 Va. 482 (Va. 2004) (defines simple, gross, and willful/wanton negligence)
Koffman v. Garnett, 265 Va. 12 (Va. 2003) (gross negligence ordinarily a factual question for jury)
Volpe v. City of Lexington, 281 Va. 630 (Va. 2011) (willful and wanton negligence characterized by conscious disregard)
Alfonso v. Robinson, 257 Va. 540 (Va. 1999) (ill will not required for willful/wanton negligence)