A water pipe burst in the basement of Superfast, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The plumbing contractor’s workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After cleaning up, Superfast put the goods on special sale.
Four weeks later Susan was shopping in Superfast. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned goods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: “Damaged Cans – Half Price.”
Susan was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased dented two cans of chicken, packed by Cansco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Susan prepared a chicken pot pie which she and Guest ate. Both became ill and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the chicken being unfit for human consumption. The cans of chicken consumed by Susan and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen.
Susan asserts a claim against Cansco based on negligence, what results? Although Guest may have a case against Superfast, and the plumbing workmen may have some responsibility, you are only to discuss Susan’s claim against Cansco. What are the defenses which Cansco may raise?
Find three cases that support Cansco’s defense in this case. Write a short essay (minimum 500 word) defending Cansco. Cite to your supporting cases by comparing and contrasting the similarities and/or differences between those cases and Cansco’s case.