245 So. 3d 444
Miss.2018Background
- On Sept. 20–21, 2004 Joe and Dianne McGinty ate dinner (prime rib) at an offsite steakhouse, later breakfast (including two pork chops) at the Island View Café inside Grand Casinos in Biloxi; both later developed vomiting and diarrhea during travel and sought emergency care in Los Angeles.
- Mr. McGinty testified one pork chop "tasted bad"; both spouses ate from the same pork chop and both became ill within a short time after breakfast; they drank only water between breakfast and onset.
- Mrs. McGinty had preexisting digestive issues documented in prior medical records; a treating California physician wrote an unsworn letter stating her upper GI bleeding was caused by severe vomiting "related to food and drink [she] had prior to the event."
- The McGintys sued Grand Casinos for negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (unfit food). Grand Casinos moved for summary judgment arguing lack of laboratory proof and insufficient expert medical causation evidence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on both claims; the Court of Appeals affirmed as to negligence but reversed as to implied warranty; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on negligence (insufficient proof linking casino conduct to contamination) but reversed the trial court and held the implied-warranty claim survived summary judgment (evidence sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer the pork chop caused illness); case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was summary judgment proper on negligence? | McGinty: eating pork chop that "tasted bad," short incubation, both got sick → causation supports negligence. | Grand Casinos: no lab tests or expert proof tying illness to contaminated food or to defendant's conduct; speculation only. | Summary judgment proper for defendant; evidence insufficient to make a prima facie negligence case. |
| Was summary judgment proper on breach of implied warranty of merchantability? | McGinty: same facts (bad taste, both ate same pork chop, contemporaneous illness, treating physician's letter) allow reasonable inference the food was unmerchantable. | Grand Casinos: lack of admissible expert diagnosis or lab results makes causation speculative; letter is insufficient. | Summary judgment improper for defendant; collective evidence is sufficient to create a jury question on implied warranty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Misticos, 42 So.2d 397 (Miss. 1949) (distinguishes inference needed for causal connection from food to illness and for restaurateur negligence; guidance on reasonable inferences in food-poisoning cases)
- John Morrell & Co. v. Shultz, 208 So.2d 906 (Miss. 1968) (upholds reversal where plaintiff lacked evidence of abnormal taste/smell or corroborating proof)
- Watson Quality Ford, Inc. v. Casanova, 999 So.2d 830 (Miss. 2008) (defines implied warranty of merchantability under Mississippi law)
- Vince v. Broome, 443 So.2d 23 (Miss. 1983) (elements required for an implied-warranty claim)
- Masonite Corp. v. Hill, 154 So. 295 (Miss. 1934) (early precedent on inferences from proof that food caused illness)
- Armour & Co. v. McMillain, 155 So. 218 (Miss. 1934) (case addressing food-related illness litigation and allocation of fault between possible defendants)
- Cudahy Packing Co. v. Baskin, 155 So. 217 (Miss. 1934) (judicial notice that exposed can-opening instruments may be contaminated)