Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Matthews v. Campbell Soup Co.

380 F. Supp. 1061 (1974)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Matthews v. Campbell Soup Co.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

380 F. Supp. 1061 (1974)

Facts

Matthews (plaintiff) injured his teeth and gums on an oyster pearl in a can of Oyster Stew Soup made by the Campbell Soup Company (Campbell) (defendant). Matthews sued Campbell for damages based, first, on a theory that Campbell was strictly liable, and second, on a theory that Campbell negligently manufactured and labeled the oyster soup. Campbell moved for summary judgment. Campbell argued that Matthews must prove that the oyster soup was defective in order for strict liability to apply. Matthews could not do so because, under the foreign-natural doctrine, the oyster soup was not defective. The foreign-natural doctrine held that a defendant could not be held liable for injuries from substances natural to the food the defendant served if those substances were inadvertently left in the food.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Seals, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 518,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership