Thе plaintiff seeks to' recover damages for injuries sustained through eating a pork рroduct prepared by the defendant and infected with trichinae. The plaintiff avеrs in her complaint that pork so infected is diseased and poisonous; that by prоper inspection the presence of the infection can be ascеrtained; that it was the duty of the defendant to make such inspection, and that it wholly failed in the performance of such duty. The defendant by demurring admits the truth of the allegations and raises the question of the obligation owed by a manufacturer of meat produсts and to whom it is owed.
The contention of the defendant is that a manufacturer who deals with the middleman and not directly with the consumer owes the latter no duty whatever exсept the duty owing to all men to refrain from knowingly and willfully inflicting injury. And as willful injury is hardly conceivable, the claim comes down to this, that a producer of meats can take no steрs to detect poisonous parasites in his products although the danger of their presence is well known and can be guarded against, and yet may sell such products with imрunity so far as the demands of poisoned consumers are concerned.
This contention is based upon the theory that so long as the manufacturer sells only to the dеaler or middleman he is a stranger to the consumer; there is no contractual relationship to base a duty upon. It is said that the dealer may sue the manufacturer and that the consumer may sue the dealer, , but that the consumer cannot sue the manufаcturer. In other words if the claim be well founded the middleman has an effective remеdy, but he is not injured. The consumer is injured, but he cannot look to the wrongdoer and must sue the lоcal dealer, who is likely to be irresponsible and is certainly free from fault.
Thе remedies of injured consumers ought not to be made to depend upon the intricаcies of the law of sales. The obligation of the manufacturer should not be based alone upon privity of contract. It should rest, as was once said, upon “the demands of social justice.” The producer should he held responsible for the results оf negligent acts which he can readily foresee. There is no analogy betweеn’ the c'ase where defective material after passing through many hands produсes not-to-be-looked-for ill effects. The iron manufacturer who fails to.inspeсt a piece of iron cannot foresee that it will he used in a boiler and cаuse a ship to sink. But the meat packer who fails to inspect his products for poisonous parasites or ingredients, knows that poison will poison and that the persоns to he poisoned through his neglect will be those who eat his products and no onе else. The natural, probable and almost inevitable result of his negligence will he injury tо the consumer and, in my opinion, every consideration of law and public poliсy requires that the consumer should have a remedy. If there are no authorities which grant one it is high time for such an authority. .
The demurrer to the complaint is overruled with costs, but the defendant within 20 days, upon the payment of costs, may answer over.