Carney v. Boston Market

Background

Ashley D. Carney, who was representing herself, brought a diversity action against Boston Market and an unidentified Boston Market employee. She alleged that Boston Market served her a meal containing what she believed was a baby chicken, breaching the implied warranty of merchantability. That warranty generally requires goods to be reasonably fit for their ordinary purposes.

Carney bought two three-piece chicken meals in New York City for $11.63. She ate one meal that day, refrigerated the other, and ate part of it two days later after reheating it. She did not eat the portion she believed was a baby chicken. She photographed that portion and kept it in her freezer.

Carney’s earlier claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress had been dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court later denied her request to replead those claims but allowed her to amend the complaint to assert the warranty claim. After discovery ended, the defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could rule for the opposing party.

Requests to Exclude Evidence

Both sides asked the court to exclude evidence, and all of those requests were denied. Carney sought to exclude her deposition testimony and the expert report of Jack Parker. The court found that the errata sheet she submitted cured the issue she identified concerning her deposition testimony. It also found that Parker’s former employment with Tyson did not establish a present conflict and that any potential bias could be considered by the factfinder. The court further found no identified basis to treat Parker’s reliance on Carney’s photographs as unreliable.

The defendants sought to exclude Carney’s deposition errata sheet because she had made an audio recording of the deposition without giving notice. The court denied that request because the defendants did not identify a specific improper portion and because the errata sheet did not affect substantive testimony.

Summary Judgment on the Warranty Claim

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied in part because a factual dispute existed over whether the food was a baby chicken or a chicken leg. Carney offered photographs of the item and argued that the unidentified employee might have intentionally served it because of a dispute involving a neighbor. The defendants offered an expert who concluded, based on the photographs, that the item was a chicken leg.

The court rejected the argument that Carney’s acknowledgment that the item might not be a baby chicken defeated her claim. Viewing the evidence in Carney’s favor, the court held that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that she had been served a baby chicken. The warranty claim therefore remained for further proceedings.

Damages

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment on damages was denied because a reasonable jury could award either nominal damages or actual damages. The court explained that actual damages for a breach of the warranty of merchantability generally measure the difference between the value of the goods as expected and the value of what was received. On the most generous interpretation of the record, the maximum actual recovery could be $11.63, the amount paid for the meal. The court also stated that nominal damages, typically one dollar, could be available in a contract action.

The court granted the defendants’ request for summary judgment concerning Carney’s requests for emotional-distress, pain-and-suffering, and punitive damages. It found that the record lacked evidence of the wanton, egregious, abusive, or publicly directed conduct required for those forms of recovery on the surviving warranty claim. The opinion states that Carney’s requests for those three categories of damages were dismissed.

Disposition

The conclusion states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied in part and granted in part. The evidentiary requests were denied. The warranty claim was not resolved against Carney because a triable factual issue remained. The requests for emotional-distress, pain-and-suffering, and punitive damages were dismissed. The court stated that, if the defendants intended to tender complete relief of $11.63, they were to do so and file a motion for default judgment by June 10, 2021; otherwise, the court would set a trial date. Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the clerk to terminate the motion.