Pedro Antonio Pastrano

24 December 2019
Class: 4128
Task: Case Briefing #1 – Team 3

O'DELL v. DeJEAN'S PACKING CO., INC. 585 P.2d 399 (1978)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Sylvia O’dell is the consumer, who purchased a

can of oysters from an oyster canning company called DeJean Packing then
the customer fractured three teeth on a raw pearl in the oysters can. The
consumer then argued that the carelessness of DeJean Packing company led
to consumer’s damage.

HISTORY: Sylvia O'Dell appealed decision the from the District Court of

PY
Oklahoma County due to the fact that the trial court rejected the requested
instructions and the verdict was not proved by any competent evidence. The
consumer did not satisfy with the judgement for the DeJean company then appealed the
decision from the District Court of Oklahoma County.

CO
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: On July 22, 1976, Sylvia O’Dell purchased a
can of oysters distributed to one of the retail outlet at Tinker Air Force Base by
DeJEAN Packing Co. After that, the customer encountered an incident of
fracturing three teeth on a little raw pearl while eating processed oysters in the
can, which led to at least 14 trips to the dentist to have the teeth repaired and
T
capped. On October 29, 1976, O’Dell sued the oyster canning company for
breach of implied warranty, praying for $350 in dental expenses and $9,500
NO
for pain and suffering. As a result, DeJean Packing Co., Inc., then filed a
response, which considered O’Dell case as unavoidable accident, contributory
negligence.

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the consumer “reasonably expected” to find a raw

pearl in the can of oysters processed by DeJean Packing company or not?
DO

HOLDING: The case is reversed and remanded from the decision of the
District Court of Oklahoma County by the Court of Appeal.

REASONING: The Court of Appeal’s argument based on the “reasonably

expected” test. In accordance with this test, in the case of whether the
consumer could not reasonably expect the substances that have ability
to cause damage in one product, especially the processed product; the
consumer has the right to file a lawsuit against the company supplying
that types of products. Moreover, in the present case, the court based the
holding on the fact that in the event that a substance in a food product is
natural as an ingredient, liability would lie for injuries caused by the substance
where the consumer of the product would not have reasonably expected to
find in the product. However, it remained ambiguous to identify the nature of
"reasonable expectation" theoretically and a "reasonable expectation" in
actual situation. In respect of the case, Sylvia O'Dell argued that a reasonable
expectation was one "in which the occurrence is more probable than just
possible". The Restatement (Second) of Torts clarified O'Dell by defining what
is to be considered "unreasonably dangerous" as "... unreasonably
dangerous, is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be
contemplated by the ordinary customer/consumer who purchased it, with the
ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its character".

DISSENT: The dissent arose between Trial court and the Court of Appeal
relating to the issue whether Sylvia O’dell would be compensated when the
consumer encountered incident from the processed product that was
purchased from DeJean Packing company. This dissent led to a reversed trial.

PY
CRITICAL SUMMARY: The appelate court applied the “reasonably expected”
test to consider the possibilities happened during one customer consumes
processed product.
T CO
NO
DO