Injured by Glass, Metal, or Contamination in Food or Drink in Missouri: What You Need to Know

If you were injured after biting into or consuming food or a beverage that contained a foreign object, such as glass, metal, or plastic, or was otherwise contaminated or spoiled, you may have a Missouri product liability claim against the restaurant, grocer, manufacturer, distributor, or other seller in the chain of commerce. Missouri law generally allows such claims under two overlapping theories: strict liability in tort, which focuses on whether the product itself was sold in a defective or unreasonably dangerous condition, and ordinary negligence, which focuses on whether someone in the chain failed to exercise reasonable care. Compensation may be available for medical and dental treatment, lost income, and pain and suffering.

What Is a Food Contamination or Foreign Object Claim Under Missouri Law?

When a foreign object turns up in food or a beverage, such as a shard of glass in a soda, a piece of metal shaving baked into packaged bread, plastic fragments in a jarred sauce, or a food item that is spoiled, undercooked, or otherwise contaminated with bacteria or other harmful substances, the person injured as a result generally has more than one legal theory available under Missouri law. These theories are not mutually exclusive, and a Missouri petition will often plead them in the alternative so a plaintiff is not forced to guess in advance which theory a jury will find persuasive.

Strict liability in tort. Missouri recognizes a well established statutory framework for strict products liability, generally found in the RSMo 537.760 et seq. range of Missouri’s Revised Statutes. Under this framework, a seller in the business of selling a product can be held liable if the product was sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer, and that defective condition existed at the time the product left the defendant’s control and caused the plaintiff’s injury. Critically, strict liability does not require proof that the seller was careless. It does not matter whether the restaurant or manufacturer used the best inspection process in the industry. If the product left their control in an unreasonably dangerous, defective condition and caused injury, liability can attach regardless of the degree of care exercised. A food item containing a piece of glass or metal that a reasonable consumer would not expect to encounter is a common example of a product that may be considered defective and unreasonably dangerous under this framework.

Negligence. As an alternative or additional theory, a plaintiff may also pursue an ordinary negligence claim against a restaurant, grocer, distributor, or manufacturer, arguing that the defendant failed to exercise the degree of care a reasonably careful business in that line of work would use in preparing, inspecting, handling, storing, or selling the food or beverage. Unlike strict liability, a negligence theory requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct fell below a reasonable standard of care, for example failing to follow reasonable food safety procedures, failing to inspect ingredients, or failing to properly cook or store a product known to carry contamination risks if mishandled.

Multiple defendants may share responsibility. Because food and beverages typically pass through several hands before reaching a consumer, a manufacturer that processes an ingredient, a distributor that transports and stores it, and a restaurant or grocer that prepares or sells it, more than one party in that chain of commerce may potentially be liable for the same injury. Determining which party or parties is responsible often requires investigating exactly where in the supply chain the contamination or foreign object was introduced.

What You Must Prove in a Food Contamination Claim?

Because Missouri recognizes both a strict liability theory and a negligence theory for these claims, a plaintiff, often pleading both in the alternative, generally must establish the following elements:

Strict Liability in Tort

• Seller in the business of selling. The defendant was engaged in the business of selling the food or beverage product, such as a restaurant, grocer, manufacturer, bottler, or distributor.
• Defective or unreasonably dangerous condition. The product was sold in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use, for example a beverage containing glass, or a packaged food item containing metal shavings or harmful contamination.
• Condition existed at time of sale. The defective, unreasonably dangerous condition existed at the time the product left the defendant’s control, without substantial change before it reached the plaintiff.
• Causation. The defective condition directly caused the plaintiff’s injury.
• Damages. The plaintiff suffered actual, compensable harm as a result.

Negligence, Pled in the Alternative

• Duty. The defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing, processing, preparing, inspecting, storing, or selling the food or beverage product.
• Breach. The defendant breached that duty, for example by failing to reasonably inspect ingredients, failing to follow reasonable food handling or sanitation practices, or failing to properly cook, store, or package the product.
• Causation, cause in fact. The breach was an actual cause of the contamination or foreign object being present in the product consumed by the plaintiff.
• Causation, proximate cause. The plaintiff’s injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care.
• Damages. The plaintiff suffered actual, compensable harm as a result of consuming or attempting to consume the contaminated or adulterated product.

In many cases, physical evidence, such as the foreign object itself, packaging, receipts, or medical records documenting the injury, plays an important role in supporting either theory, so preserving evidence promptly is important.

Common Food Contamination and Foreign Object Scenarios

The following are generic, illustrative examples of how these claims commonly arise, not a description of any real event, client, or case:

• A customer at a restaurant bites into a burger or sandwich and encounters a piece of glass or hard plastic, causing a chipped tooth, cut to the mouth or gums, or a choking incident.
• A consumer drinks from a sealed bottled or canned beverage and discovers glass shards or metal fragments inside, either while drinking or afterward.
• A shopper purchases packaged bread, baked goods, or a canned food product from a grocery store and finds metal shavings or a piece of manufacturing equipment embedded in the product.
• A family member becomes seriously ill after eating undercooked poultry, meat, or eggs at a restaurant, later linked to bacterial contamination.
• A consumer becomes ill after eating spoiled or improperly stored dairy, seafood, or prepared deli food that was sold past a safe point of freshness.
• A child bites into packaged snack food and encounters a small foreign object, such as a piece of plastic or wire, resulting in a dental or oral injury.
• A consumer purchases a jarred or canned product with a manufacturing defect that introduces glass, metal, or other contaminants during the production process.

Damages Available in a Food Injury Claim

Missouri law generally allows a person injured by a contaminated or defective food or beverage product to seek compensatory damages for losses actually caused by the incident, which may include:

• Past and future medical expenses, such as costs of emergency treatment, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, and follow up care related to the injury or illness.
• Dental and oral injury treatment, such as costs associated with chipped, cracked, or lost teeth, or lacerations to the mouth, gums, throat, or esophagus caused by a foreign object.
• Lost wages and loss of earning capacity, for income lost while recovering and any reduced ability to earn income due to a lasting impairment.
• Pain and suffering, for the physical pain and discomfort associated with the injury, illness, and any related treatment or recovery.
• Emotional distress, for the psychological effects that can follow a frightening choking incident, a foodborne illness, or ongoing anxiety about eating certain foods.
• Permanent injury or disfigurement, for lasting physical effects such as permanent dental damage or scarring.
• Out of pocket expenses, for reasonable costs directly related to the injury, such as follow up dental work or replacement of a damaged product.

Every case is different, and the specific damages available depend on the facts and the severity of the injury. No outcome or dollar amount can be promised in advance.

Sample Missouri Petition for a Food Contamination Claim

The following is a generic, illustrative example for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice, is not based on any actual client or case, and any real petition must be tailored to the specific facts of a case by a licensed attorney.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI

[PLAINTIFF NAME],

        Plaintiff,

v.                                          Case No. ______

[DEFENDANT SELLER/MANUFACTURER NAME],

        Defendant.

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

COMES NOW Plaintiff [Plaintiff Name], by and through undersigned counsel, and for
Plaintiff's Petition for Damages against Defendant [Defendant Seller/Manufacturer
Name], states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because the acts and omissions
   giving rise to this cause of action occurred in [County] County, Missouri.

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Missouri law because the product at
   issue was sold and/or the incident described herein occurred in [County] County,
   Missouri, and/or Defendant transacts business, resides, or may be found in this
   County.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff [Plaintiff Name] is, and at all relevant times was, an individual
   residing in [County] County, Missouri.

4. Defendant [Defendant Seller/Manufacturer Name] is, and at all relevant times
   was, a business entity engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing,
   preparing, and/or selling food and beverage products to consumers in the State
   of Missouri, including in [County] County.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. On or about [date], Plaintiff purchased and/or was served a [generic food or
   beverage product description, e.g., "sealed bottled beverage" or "prepared
   sandwich"] from Defendant at Defendant's location in [County] County, Missouri.

6. The product described above was manufactured, prepared, distributed, and/or sold
   by Defendant in the ordinary course of Defendant's business.

7. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the product contained a foreign substance and/or was
   otherwise contaminated, namely [generic description, e.g., "a piece of glass" or
   "harmful bacterial contamination"].

8. Plaintiff consumed, or attempted to consume, the product in the condition in
   which it was sold, without knowledge of the foreign substance or contamination
   and without any substantial change to the product after it left Defendant's
   control.

9. As a direct result of the foreign substance and/or contamination present in the
   product, Plaintiff suffered physical injury, including but not limited to
   [generic description, e.g., "a laceration to the mouth and chipped tooth" or
   "acute gastrointestinal illness"].

10. As a direct and proximate result of the incident described above, Plaintiff
    sustained injuries, incurred medical and/or dental expenses, lost income, and
    experienced pain and suffering, among other damages described more fully below.

COUNT I: STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT

11. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though
    fully set forth herein.

12. At all relevant times, Defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing,
    distributing, preparing, and/or selling the food or beverage product described
    above.

13. The product was sold by Defendant in a defective condition unreasonably
    dangerous to consumers, in that it contained a foreign substance and/or
    contamination that a reasonable consumer would not expect to encounter.

14. The defective, unreasonably dangerous condition existed at the time the product
    left Defendant's control and reached Plaintiff without substantial change.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the product's defective and unreasonably
    dangerous condition, Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages described
    herein.

COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE (Pled in the Alternative)

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though
    fully set forth herein.

17. At all relevant times, Defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in the
    manufacturing, processing, preparation, inspection, storage, and/or sale of the
    food or beverage product described above, so as not to cause injury to
    consumers, including Plaintiff.

18. Defendant breached that duty by, among other things: (a) failing to reasonably
    inspect the product before it was sold or served to Plaintiff; (b) failing to
    follow reasonable food safety and handling practices; (c) failing to detect and
    remove a foreign substance and/or contamination from the product; and/or (d)
    otherwise failing to exercise the degree of care a reasonably careful business
    in Defendant's position would have exercised under the circumstances.

19. Defendant's breach of duty directly and proximately caused the presence of the
    foreign substance and/or contamination in the product consumed by Plaintiff,
    and the resulting injuries.

20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered
    and will continue to suffer damages, including but not limited to: past and
    future medical and dental expenses; past and future lost wages and loss of
    earning capacity; physical pain and suffering; emotional distress; and permanent
    injury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against
Defendant on Count I and/or Count II for compensatory damages in an amount fair and
reasonable to compensate Plaintiff for all damages sustained, together with costs of
this action, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________
[Attorney Name], Attorney for Plaintiff
Mutrux Firm Injury Lawyers
[Address Placeholder, Firm Office Address]

Why Hire Mutrux Firm Injury Lawyers?

Food contamination and foreign substance cases often require identifying exactly where in the chain of commerce, the manufacturer, distributor, or the restaurant or grocer that served or sold the product, a defect or failure of reasonable care occurred, and preserving physical evidence like the product itself and its packaging before it is lost or discarded. Attorney Tyson Mutrux and the team at Mutrux Firm Injury Lawyers represent injured consumers throughout Missouri.

The firm handles food contamination and product liability cases on a contingency fee basis, “No Fees Unless You Win,” so injured consumers can pursue a claim without paying upfront legal fees. The firm’s approach is reflected in its tagline, “Your Recovery is Our Fight.”

You can reach the firm at its two Missouri office locations:

• St. Louis office: 222 S Central Ave, Suite 550, St. Louis, MO 63105, phone (314) 270-2273
• Columbia office: 2415 Carter Ln, Suite 102, Columbia, MO 65201, phone (573) 722-2121
• Toll free: (888) 550-4026