How To Analyze Cansco's Argument In This Case

330 Words2 Pages
Susan purchased two dented cans of chicken from Superfast grocery store that were on a table labeled “damaged cans - half price”. She brought the two cans home and made a chicken pot pie with them for herself and a guest. After eating the pie, both became ill. The medical testimony in this case showed that the illness was caused by the chicken being unfit for human consumption. Susan is suing Cansco, which is the company who packed the cans that she purchased from Superfast.
The cans that Susan bought had been sitting on a shelf when a pipe burst causing flooding in the basement of Superfast. The plumbing workmen that the store hired knocked over several cases of cans which got wet and dented. These are the cans that were put on the half-priced table that Susan purchased.
Cansco should not be found negligent in this case. The canned goods that they packed and shipped to Superfast grocery store arrived intact. This indicates that there was no negligence on their part. There are several points that Cansco can make in their defense.
1.
…show more content…
Cansco shipped the cases of canned chicken to Superfast undamaged.
2. The plumbing workmen that Superfast hired knocked the cases over causing the cans to become dented and compromised.
3. Superfast placed the dented cans of chicken on a table to sell at half price.
Since Superfast knowingly sold the compromised cans of chicken and Susan purchased them she claims the assumption of risk. In the case of John Morrell Company vs. Mrs. Angie Schultz, she also accepted the assumption of risk since she noticed that the can had been dented prior to eating the potted meat that she purchased (JOHN MORRELL & COMPANY v. Mrs. Angie SHULTZ., 1968). It was also stated that she did not consider the dent serious enough to affect the contents of the can. Therefore, Cansco cannot held liable for negligence in this case since Susan knowingly purchased the dented
Open Document