CEF Enterprises, Inc. v. Betts
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00570-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-14-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Sufficiency of evidence - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 15 - Legal standard - Adulterated food Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving and Myers, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-13-2002 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,249.83 PLUS COURT COSTS AND INTEREST Case Number: CV01-241(R)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CEF Enterprises, Inc. |
DAVID R. SPARKS
|
||
| Appellee: | Terry Betts | VICTOR ISRAEL FLEITAS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Sufficiency of evidence - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 15 - Legal standard - Adulterated food |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Terry Betts found a bug in his biscuit and gravy breakfast which he purchased from the drive-thru window of a Burger King Restaurant, he filed a complaint in county court against CEF Enterprises, Inc., the parent company of Burger King Restaurants, alleging that CEF breached its implied warranty of merchantability by allowing its food product to become contaminated with a bug. He later filed a motion to amend his original complaint seeking to add strict liability, negligence per se and negligence as legal theories in addition to his original complaint of breach of implied warranty of merchantability and to increase the ad damnum amount from $49,000 to $74,999. The court granted his motion. The court found for Betts and awarded him $1,249.83 plus costs of court. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed. CEF appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence In order to prove negligence, Betts had to show that CEF owed him a duty, breached that duty, and proximately caused his injury and damages. To recover for breach of an implied warranty, Betts had to show that the defendant was a merchant which sold goods of the kind involved in the transaction, that the defect was present when the product left the defendant’s control, and that his injuries were caused proximately by the defective nature of the goods. CEF argues that Betts lacked sufficient evidence to meet the elements of both of these causes of action. The testimony is conflicting in this case. The judge resolved the conflict in the plaintiff’s favor finding that there was a bug in the food and that this was not a fabricated story. This is supported by the hospital records which indicate that Betts got sick from eating part of a roach at Burger King Restaurant. The judge’s reasoning is not at fault. Issue 2: Amendment of complaint CEF argues that the court erred by allowing Betts to amend his original complaint after the original filing to include additional theories of recovery and amend the ad damnum clause. The comment to M.R.C.P. 15(a) provides that an amendment should be denied only if it would cause actual prejudice to the opposing party. M.R.C.P. 15(d) allows a pleading to be supplemented upon reasonable notice and upon just terms which set forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of the original pleading. Because Betts’ motion was made six months before trial, CEF had ample time to prepare for the additional legal theories. In addition, the amendment had no bearing on the outcome of the case because breach of implied warranty of merchantability was presented in Betts’s original complaint, and this theory and negligence require the same type of proof. Issue 3: Standard CEF argues that the court erred by applying the legal standard of negligence and breach of warranty, because the adulterated food laws, sections 75-29-1 through 75-29-31, are the applicable standard. However, these statutes deal more with sanctions available to the State Board of Health, rather than specific causes of action available to individuals. In addition, the definition of adulterated food is only applicable to meat and poultry. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
