Montana and Strict Liability in Food Poisoning Cases

• Disclaimer: The following in provided for educational purposes and to engender a conversation about the benefits and draw-backs of strict liability. The author, while admitted pro hac vice in the current Dave’s Sushi Morel Mushroom Wrongful death litigation, is not licensed in Montana.

In Montana, strict liability laws, particularly as they apply to food poisoning and product liability, appears to follow the general principles seen in other states but with some nuances. Here’s how Montana seems to addresses strict liability and its potential application to food poisoning cases:

Strict Liability in Montana

Montana seems to apply strict liability in product liability cases, including food-related cases. Under Montana law, a manufacturer or seller appear to be held liable if a product, including food, is deemed to be defective and causes harm. A plaintiff in Montana does not seem to be required to prove that the manufacturer or seller was negligent; they only appear to need to show that the product was defective and that this defect caused their injury. See Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U. S. A., 513 P.2d 268, 272 (Mont. 1973)

Montana courts recognize three main types of product defects for strict liability:

1. Design Defects: The design of the product is inherently unsafe.
2. Manufacturing Defects: The product is improperly manufactured, making it dangerous.
3. Failure to Warn: The manufacturer or seller fails to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of the product.

In the context of food poisoning, the defect would typically fall under a manufacturing defect, where the food was contaminated during production or handling, making it unsafe for consumption. In other words, a strict liability action under a manufacturing defect theory, the issue is whether the manufactured product left the factory in a flawed condition because it did not conform to original design specifications.  See Rix v. Gen. Motors Corp., 723 P.2d 195, 202 (Mont. 1986)(“In a strict liability action under a manufacturing defect theory, the issue is whether the manufactured product left the factory in a flawed condition because it did not conform to original design specifications”).

In its statute regarding the liability of seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer, it states:

A person who sells a product in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer or to the property of a user or consumer is liable for physical harm caused by the product to the ultimate user or consumer or to the user’s or consumer’s property if:

(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling the product; and

(b) the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-719 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through all 2023 legislation, inclusive of the final Chapter 783 of the 68th Legislature’s concluded Regular session)

Montana defines a food as adulterated if: ‘it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health.” See below.

Application of Strict Liability to Food Poisoning in Montana

Montana courts have generally upheld the doctrine of strict liability in food poisoning cases – though, admittedly, the number of “on-point” cases is low. The state recognizes that contaminated or defective food is a type of product defect, and companies that produce, distribute, or sell the food can be held strictly liable if the food causes harm to a consumer.

Key Elements of Food Poisoning Cases in Montana

1. Defective Food: The plaintiff must show that the food they consumed was defective. In food poisoning cases, this could mean showing that the food was contaminated with harmful bacteria like E. coli or Salmonella, or that it contained a foreign object or was improperly stored.
2. Causation: The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defective food caused their illness or injury. In food poisoning cases, this often involves medical documentation linking the consumption of the food to the illness.
3. Involvement of Manufacturers, Restaurants, and Retailers: Similar to other states, strict liability for food poisoning in Montana can extend beyond the manufacturer to include restaurants, grocery stores, and other food sellers. If a restaurant serves contaminated food or a grocery store sells spoiled or improperly handled products, they too can be held strictly liable.

Defenses to Strict Liability in Montana

Montana law appears to allow for certain defenses in strict liability cases, even though proving negligence is not required. Common defenses include:

• Assumption of Risk: If the plaintiff knowingly consumed food they believed was unsafe or undercooked, the defendant may use this defense to mitigate or avoid liability.
• Misuse of Product: If the plaintiff improperly handled or stored the food after purchase, which contributed to the food becoming unsafe, the defendant may argue that this misuse limits their liability.
• Comparative Negligence: Montana follows a modified comparative negligence standard. If the plaintiff is found to be partially responsible for their own injury (for instance, by not following proper handling or cooking instructions), their compensation may be reduced in proportion to their share of fault. However, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they may be barred from recovery.

Montana’s Approach to Damages in Strict Liability Cases

Montana does not appear to impose caps on economic damages (such as medical expenses and lost wages) in product liability cases, including those involving food poisoning. However, the state does appear to have limitations on some non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, in some situations. Additionally, punitive damages, which are meant to punish egregious conduct, are only awarded in cases where the defendant’s conduct is proven to be particularly reckless or intentional.

Example of Food Poisoning Liability in Montana

Imagine a case where a person consumes contaminated beef purchased from a grocery store in Montana and later becomes seriously ill due to E. coli contamination. Under strict liability, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the grocery store or the beef producer was negligent in handling or distributing the meat. Instead, they need to show that the beef was defective (contaminated with E. coli) and that this contamination caused their illness.

The grocery store and the beef producer can, arguably, both be held liable under Montana’s strict liability laws because they are part of the distribution chain for the defective product. Even if the grocery store followed all safety guidelines and was unaware of the contamination, it could still be held strictly liable for selling defective food. Note: This principle can be seen in recent filings against Dave’s Sushi in the deadly outbreak linked to serving Morel Mushrooms in Sushi Rolls.

Food Safety Regulations in Montana

In addition to strict liability principles, Montana food establishments must comply with state food safety regulations. These laws are designed to prevent foodborne illnesses and are enforced by the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS). Failure to adhere to these regulations can increase a company’s liability exposure in food poisoning cases.

However, strict liability applies regardless of whether the company followed safety regulations. Even if a food manufacturer or restaurant complies with all food safety laws, they can still be held strictly liable if their food is defective and causes harm.

Note: Pursuant to MONT. CODE ANN. § 50-31-202, et al., “[a] food is considered to be adulterated if: (1) it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health[,] . . . (5) it consists in whole or in part of a diseased, contaminated, filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or if it is otherwise unfit for food[, or] (6) it has been produced, prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions under which it may have become contaminated with filth or under which it may have been rendered diseased, unwholesome, or injurious to health . . . .”

Pursuant to MONT. CODE ANN. § 50-31-501, et al., “[t]he following acts and the causing of the acts within the state of Montana are prohibited: (1) the manufacture, sale or delivery, holding, or offering for sale of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded[, or] (2) the adulteration or  misbranding of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic . . . .”

Pursuant to MONT. CODE ANN. § 50-1-105, et al., “[i]t is the policy of the state of Montana that the health of the public be protected and promoted to the extent practicable through the public health system . . . .”

Conclusion

In Montana, it appears that strict liability applies to food poisoning cases, holding manufacturers, distributors, and sellers accountable for defective or contaminated food products. The state’s laws appear generally consistent with the broader U.S. legal landscape, though Montana offers some specific defenses and follows a modified comparative negligence standard. Companies in Montana, including restaurants and retailers, can (arguably) be held liable for foodborne illnesses even if they were unaware of the contamination or followed all safety regulations. This legal doctrine emphasizes consumer protection, ensuring that those harmed by defective food products have a means of recovery without needing to prove negligence.