Foster v. AFC Enterprises, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on McCauley v. Manda Brothers Provisions Company · 202 So. 2d 492 - McCauley v. Manda Brothers Provisions Co. · Bonilla v. Arrow Food Distributors, Inc. · 85 So. 2d 63 - McAvin v. Morrison Cafeteria Company of Louisiana · Griffin v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The courts have never compelled a plaintiff to produce an actual analysis of the food consumed in order to establish its unwholesome condition. Rather, the courts have been willing to infer the deleterious nature of the food consumed from the circumstances surrounding the illness. In all of the cases in which there has been successful recovery, the plaintiff has shown that the food was consumed by him, and that no other food which might reasonably be assumed to have caused the illness had been consumed within a number of hours before or after the consumption of the suspect product. The plaintiff has also had medical opinion to the effect that it was probable that his illness was caused by the consumption of the particular product involved. In addition, the successful plaintiffs in the above cases have been able to show some other independent circumstance, which tends to prove his case...."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To meet his or her burden of proof in a food poisoning case, the plaintiff must prove that the deleterious condition existed in the product when it was purchased. The plaintiff must further prove the existence of a causal relationship between the illness or injury and the consumption of the food. In fulfilling this burden of proof, "it is not necessary for the consumer to negate every conceivable cause but he must show that it is more likely than not the food's condition caused the injury of which he complains."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it is not necessary for the consumer to negate every conceivable cause but he must show that it is more likely than not the food's condition caused the injury of which he complains.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.