Supermarket snacker wins compensation for breaking teeth in date pit

A man broke two teeth and his upper denture after biting into a date pit. (File image)
Photo: Unsplash / Jonathan Borba

A man ended up with an unexpected appointment with a dentist after chewing a “supermarket snack” that broke two molars and his top denture.

According to a recently published Disputes Court decision, the unnamed man was chewing his snack when he bit into what he thought was a nut, which the packaging said it might contain. However, the object that broke the teeth turned out to be a date stone.

The man took the manufacturer, who was also not identified, to the Disputes Court, asking for $5,000 to cover his dental bills, the cost of replacing his dentures and compensation for “the pain and suffering he endured.”

However, the company’s lawyer stated that there was no negligence or breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA), but rather there was an element of negligence on the part of the man: he should have “removed any object he had detected in the food, instead of trying to chew it.

Court arbitrator Cynthia Hawes said in a recently published decision that the issue was whether the company was liable to compensate the man for damages resulting from biting into the date pit and, if so, what sum should be ordered.

He said the main relevant argument related to the CGA, under which a manufacturer must ensure that the goods it produces for consumers are of acceptable quality and fit for their purpose.

“In my opinion, (the snack) was not of acceptable quality or fit for purpose,” Hawes said.

“I don’t think a reasonable consumer would have purchased such an item knowing that it contained an object that could break their teeth or dentures. The (snack) put the consumer’s physical safety at risk.”

Nor did he think that the fact that the man bit into the date pit “more than once” meant he was responsible.

“He reasonably expected the (sandwich) to contain nuts. He should not have reasonably expected to find a hard date pit in the (sandwich).”

Hawes said that since the manufacturer had agreed to pay the man $762 for his broken molars, he included it in the order.

“Furthermore, I believe that (the manufacturer) should pay for (the man’s) broken upper denture. The breakage was due, as (his) dentist claimed, to the date pit.”

However, it did not include the cost of a new lower set of teeth, as the man had not demonstrated that he needed one due to the date pit.

Rather, the man’s dentist had reported that a new lower denture was a “desirable option” to improve the man’s “general dental fitness.”

This was more related to cavities than date pits, so Hawes decided that the manufacturer did not need to pay for new lower dentures.

She did not believe the man was entitled to compensation for a breach of contract, which he attempted to claim on the back of correspondence in which he said the manufacturer had accepted responsibility.

“Copies of correspondence provided to me show that (the manufacturer) discussed offers of payment, but at no time did he accept responsibility for paying the sum that (the man) claimed.”

Hawes said there was no liability other than violations of the CGA.

Hawes did find that the circumstances of the case, however, meant that the “loss or damage” suffered by a consumer could extend to pain, discomfort and the resulting physical difficulty in eating while awaiting dental repairs.

She allowed $500 for that.

The cost to repair the molars was $762; The upper denture cost $1,226.

The manufacturer was ordered to pay a total of $2,488.

This story was originally published by New Zealand Herald.