JULIE A. ERICKSON, n/k/a JULIE A. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RAHEEL FOODS, INC., d/b/a KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-764 / 07-0466
Filed November 29, 2007
JULIE A. ERICKSON, n/k/a
JULIE A. DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
RAHEEL FOODS, INC., d/b/a
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Dale E. Ruigh,
Judge.
Julie Erickson Davis appeals from the district court’s damage award.
AFFIRMED.
A. Zane Blessum, Winterset, and Catherine Levine, Des Moines, for
appellant.
Mitchell Kunert of Nyemaster, Goode, West, Hansell & O’Brien, P.C., Des
Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Julie Erickson Davis bought a sandwich from a Kentucky Fried Chicken
restaurant owned by Raheel Foods, Inc. The sandwich was contaminated with a
metal strand from a scouring pad. Davis sued Raheel Foods for negligence.
Following a bench trial, the district court determined “KFC was negligent in failing
to keep their establishment free of [the] contaminated chicken sandwich
purchased by Ms. Davis” and that “such negligence was a proximate cause of
damage to Ms. Davis.” The court awarded Davis the $81.00 cost of a dental visit
and $500 for the anxiety she suffered as a result of the incident.
On appeal, Davis argues she should have been awarded more damages
for past pain and suffering and past medical expenses as well as damages for
future pain and suffering. In reviewing the damage issue, the district court’s fact
findings bind us if supported by substantial evidence.
Claus v. Whyle, 526
N.W.2d 519, 526 (Iowa 1994).
The district court made several pertinent findings. The court found that
“on the day she bit into the KFC sandwich, Ms. Davis sought no medical care.”
The court also found that Davis visited a dentist six days later and the dentist
“found no physical injuries from the sandwich incident.” The court nonetheless
found that Davis “suffered one or more very small abrasions to the inside of her
mouth.” The court stated these abrasions “caused no long-term physical injury.”
The court rejected other complaints of damage.
With respect to Davis’s
assertion that she developed abscesses, the court stated:
Ms. Davis attributes a great many of her past and present
health difficulties to the single bite she took from the KFC sandwich
. . . . She believes that chemicals from the Brillo pad in the
3
sandwich entered her lymphatic system and caused the sores and
abscess. This belief is unsupported by any credible evidence.
With respect to her assertion that she had nightmares, anxiety, and nausea after
the incident, the court stated,
The experience of biting into the chicken sandwich caused Ms.
Davis some modest, short-term anxiety and anguish.
Her
testimony about ongoing anxiety and nausea caused by biting into
the sandwich, however, is unconvincing.
These fact findings are supported by substantial evidence.
The dentist who
examined Davis noted that her left cheek was cut, but was “O.K. today.”
Approximately three months after the incident, Davis saw a physician for a
routine physical examination and made no complaints about health problems
related to the sandwich incident. Though Davis later complained to the same
physician about anxiety, depression, and nausea, a reasonable fact-finder could
have discounted these complaints in light of her failure to mention them earlier.
Because there is substantial evidence to support the district court’s fact findings
on damages, we conclude the court did not err in only awarding $581. We find it
unnecessary to decide any remaining issues raised by Davis.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
