Estate of Pinkham v. Cargill, Inc., 55 A.3d 1

Estate appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of Cargill on a strict liability claim under 14 M.R.S. § 221 for a boneless turkey product that allegedly contained bone fragments.
Pinkham ingested a hot turkey sandwich from Dysart’s Truck Stop; Cargill manufactured the boneless turkey used.
Stern observed a small foreign body (bone/cartilage fragments) in the food bolus near Pinkham’s esophageal perforation.
Stern testified the injury was a perforation secondary to a foreign body; a second factor (e.g., retching, vomiting) would likely be needed, even with a predisposition.
Estate relied on hearsay evidence (two affidavits and a recorded conversation) to prove injury causation, which the court excluded as inadmissible; the Estate sought to rebut preexisting swallowing difficulties from hospital records.
The trial court granted summary judgment, applying both the foreign-natural and reasonable expectation tests, and held bone fragments within a boneless turkey did not render the product defective; Estate appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What test governs strict liability for defective food in Maine?	Estate argues for reasonable expectation test.	Cargill argues for traditional foreign-natural approach or that no defect shown.	Court adopts reasonable expectation test.
Is there a genuine dispute of material fact whether the turkey product caused Pinkham’s injury?	Stern’s foreign body theory and bone fragment evidence create a factual question.	Evidence insufficient to prove defect or causation beyond speculative.	Yes, genuine issue; summary judgment improper.
May the Restatement (Third) inference on defect aid Estate without proof of a specific defect?	Restatement § 3(b) permits inference of defect.	Inference not established without specific defect evidence.	Court allows inference under Restatement § 3(b) on remand.
Should the court reconsider inadmissible hearsay issues in light of summary judgment posture?	Evidence would support prima facie case if admitted.	Hearsay should be excluded; court below properly excluded.	Not resolved on appeal; addressed as part of prima facie case finding.

Kobeckis v. Budzko, 225 A.2d 418 (Me. 1967) (live trichinae not a defect under strict liability)
Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932 (Me. 1982) (statute modeled on Restatement § 402A)
Matthews v. Campbell Soup Co., 380 F.Supp. 1061 (S.D. Tex. 1974) (reasonable expectation approach in product liability)
Jackson v. Nestle-Beich, Inc., 147 Ill.2d 408 (Ill. 1992) (reasonable expectation test for defective foods)
Moores v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 425 F.Supp.2d 151 (D. Me. 2006) (court acknowledged possible adoption of Restatement § 3 in Maine)