González Cabán v. JR Seafood
132 F. Supp. 3d 274
D.P.R.2015Background
- Plaintiff Luis González ate shrimp at Restaurante El Nuevo Amanecer and suffered paralytic shellfish poisoning (allegedly from saxitoxin), resulting in permanent incomplete quadriplegia; family members joined for derivative damages.
- The shrimp was imported and passed through a supply chain including JR Seafood, Packers Provisions, and GB Trading before sale to the restaurant; plaintiffs sue sellers/distributors/insurers under Puerto Rico product-liability and tort law.
- Plaintiffs allege strict liability (failure to warn / implied warranty) and Article 1802 negligence; defendants moved to dismiss the strict liability claim for failure to state a claim and for lack of any duty to test for saxitoxin.
- Central legal question: whether Puerto Rico strict products liability applies to naturally occurring toxic substances in wild-caught food (i.e., defects not resulting from manufacture/fabrication), and whether detectability of the toxin matters.
- The Puerto Rico law on applying strict liability to non-manufactured food defects is unsettled; the parties dispute whether Puerto Rico follows Restatement §402A broadly or limits strict liability to manufactured/fabricated defects.
- The district court abstained from resolving the unsettled state-law question and certified the controlling question to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of strict products liability to a naturally occurring, highly poisonous toxin in wild-caught shrimp | González: strict liability/implied warranty applies to sellers/distributors in the supply chain under Puerto Rico precedent; §402A principles cover food whether processed or not | Packers et al.: strict liability in Puerto Rico is limited to manufactured/fabricated defects; natural toxins like saxitoxin (like ciguatera) are not products of manufacture and thus outside strict liability | Court declined to decide; certified the question to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court and abstained from ruling on dismissal |
| Duty to test for saxitoxin by importers/distributors | González: federal regulations and available testing methods establish that defendants had means and therefore obligations to detect the toxin | Defendants: federal regulations do not impose a duty to test; absence of regulatory duty undermines plaintiffs’ claim of legal obligation to test | Court found factual/determinative issues (detectability, testing) are for discovery/jury and refrained from resolving legal duty question now; certification requested |
| Relevance of detectability of the toxin to strict liability | González: detectability supports imposition of liability (methods existed) | Defendants: undetectable natural toxins historically placed these harms outside strict liability (citing concurrence in Mendez Corrada) | Court asked Puerto Rico Supreme Court whether detectability changes the strict-liability analysis (certified question) |
| Choice of standard (foreign-natural vs. reasonable expectations / §402A) | González: Puerto Rico incorporated §402A/Greenman and should apply strict liability to defective food even if not manufactured | Defendants: Puerto Rico decisions show uneven adoption of §402A; strict liability may be narrower and not extend to non-manufactured natural defects | Court concluded Puerto Rico precedent is unclear and certified the legal question rather than predict state law |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., 59 Cal.2d 57 (adopted strict liability principles for defective products)
- Mendoza v. Cervecería Corona, 97 D.P.R. 499 (P.R. 1969) (Puerto Rico adoption and shaping of manufacturer strict liability)
- Castro v. Payco, 75 P.R. Dec. 59 (P.R. 1953) (early Puerto Rico recognition of implied warranty/consumer protection for food)
- Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.4th 617 (Cal. 1992) (discussing foreign-natural vs. reasonable expectations tests for food)
- Guevara v. Dorsey Labs., Div. of Sandoz, Inc., 845 F.2d 364 (1st Cir. 1988) (federal discussion of Puerto Rico product-liability principles)