Craten v. Foster Poultry Farms Inc.
305 F. Supp. 3d 1051
D. Ariz.2018Background
- In 2013, infant N.C. contracted Salmonella Heidelberg during a multi-state outbreak the CDC linked in part to Foster Farms' California plants; plaintiffs are N.C.'s parents, James and Amanda Craten.
- Plaintiffs sued Foster Farms (Dec. 2015) asserting strict liability (manufacturing defect and failure to warn), breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and negligence (including negligence per se) alleging processing and labeling failures.
- Plaintiffs lack direct proof that N.C. ate Foster Farms chicken in the week before illness; their causation theory rests on circumstantial evidence (rare strain, timing, geographic distribution) and expert opinion.
- USDA/FSIS issued Notices of Intended Enforcement to Foster Farms’ three CA facilities during the outbreak, citing HACCP/SSOP/SPS failures and linking products to the outbreak.
- Foster Farms moved for summary judgment arguing (1) PPIA preemption of state-law claims, (2) plaintiffs cannot prove causation, and (3) strict liability/implied-warranty claims fail because Salmonella is natural to poultry and chicken is safe when properly cooked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PPIA preempts state-law claims based on Salmonella contamination | State-law duties (including finding product adulterated or produced under insanitary conditions) are available where product is linked to an outbreak | PPIA/FMIA permit sale of raw poultry containing Salmonella; federal scheme occupies field and preempts conflicting state duties | Partially: failure-to-warn/labeling claims preempted; negligence claims not preempted where they parallel PPIA duties and where USDA enforcement (NOIEs) supports jury factfinding |
| Whether Salmonella on raw poultry is an adulterant per se under the PPIA | Plaintiffs: USDA may deem product adulterated when linked to an outbreak and produced under insanitary conditions | Foster Farms: Salmonella is not an adulterant per Butz/Supreme Beef; presence alone cannot support liability | Court: Salmonella not adulterant per se, but USDA guidance and NOIEs show Salmonella-linked outbreak products can be treated as adulterated; jury may determine insanitary conditions |
| Whether plaintiffs can prove causation that Foster Farms chicken caused N.C.'s illness | Circumstantial evidence and expert opinions make it more likely than not that Foster Farms products caused the infection | Lack of direct evidence (no purchase records, parents’ initial denial); CDC cautioned not all linked strains were outbreak-related | Denied summary judgment on causation: circumstantial evidence + expert testimony sufficient to create triable issue |
| Whether strict liability and implied warranty claims survive where Salmonella is natural and killed by proper cooking | Plaintiffs: product associated with outbreak was unfit and defective | Foster Farms: Salmonella is natural; raw chicken is intended to be cooked; strict liability would conflict with PPIA and allow liability despite due care | Granted summary judgment for Foster Farms on strict liability and implied warranty: Arizona law bars such claims for naturally occurring hazards anticipated by ordinary consumer expectations |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pub. Health Ass'n v. Butz, 511 F.2d 331 (D.C. Cir.) (presence of salmonella on inspected meat not treated as adulteration under certain statutory definitions)
- Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 275 F.3d 432 (5th Cir.) (Salmonella not adulterant per se; USDA may not regulate incoming raw-material characteristics as insanitary processing)
- Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 822 P.2d 1292 (Cal. 1992) (natural substances in food expected by consumers preclude strict liability and implied-warranty recovery; negligence remains available)
- Scheller v. Wilson Certified Foods, Inc., 559 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. 1976) (Arizona rejects strict liability for raw meat naturally harboring hazards when product is intended to be cooked)
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (reference that state common-law duties that add to or differ from federal requirements may be preempted)