June 14, 2021

Tech Luver

Technology for Innovators

Procedural Posture

1 min read

Plaintiff consumers appealed an order from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which dismissed their amended complaint in an action for damages for injuries suffered from eating food unfit for human consumption.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains more about Family Code Section 2336


The consumers’ action was dismissed after they failed to amend their complaint after a demurrer to their amended complaint was sustained. The demurrer was based on the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions contained in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340. The court determined that the statute of limitations found in § 340 applied rather than the two-year statute of limitations that was found in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339. While the claim set out in the amended complaint was based on a breach of the implied warranty of fitness, the cause of action arose because of the personal injuries that resulted from the consumers’ eating of tainted food. Some wrongful act or neglect by defendant manufacturer caused those injuries. Therefore, the action was one in tort and Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340 applied. Additionally, the limitations period set out in § 340 began to run on the date the consumers ate the tainted food and were injured. The fact that they did not discover the cause of their injuries until over a year later had no effect on the running of the limitations period.


The court affirmed the dismissal of the consumers’ complaint.