Who says Americans don't take their food seriously? At least New Englanders do . . .

and what does it say about me that reading this case made me laugh out loud and want to share with others?

Webster v Blue Ship Tea Room
MA Supreme 1964
[summary in my own words]

A native New England woman ate fish chowder in a "quaint" Boston restaurant. She got a fishbone stuck in her through and suffered "not insubstantial" injury. She sued, saying that the Uniform Commercial Codes provisions on implied warranty meant that there were not supposed to be fishbones in her chowder.

The defendant's lawyers asked the court to dismiss the case, saying "In so ruling the court will not only uphold its repuation for legal knowledge and acumen, but will, as loyal sons of Massachusetts, save our world renowned fish chowder from degenerating into an insipd broth containing the mere essence of its former stature as a culinary masterpiece."

The court responded, "Not withstanding these passionate entreaties we are bound to examine with detachment the nature of fish chowder and what might happen to it under varying interpretations of the UCC." All the same, the court seems to have taken their words to heart, describing the ancient roots of chowder (both the word itself and the food) in Brittany, Newfoundland, and New England. It then recited various recipes, starting back in 19th century cookbooks, and progressing to modern cookbooks, including "the all embracing Fannie Farmer" who explicitly indicates that bones should be put into the chowder. The court summarizes,

"Thus, we consider a dish which for many long years, if well made, has been made generally as outlined above. It is not too much to say that a person sitting down in a New England to consume a good New England fish chosder embarks on a gustatory adventure which may entail the removal of some fish bones from his bowl as he proceeds. We are not inclined to tamper with age old recipes by any amendment reflecting the plaintiff's view of the effect of the Unifrom Commercial Code upon them. . . . We should be prepared to cope with the hazards of fish bones, the occasional presence of which in chowders is, it seems to us, to be anticipated, and which in the light of a hallowed tradition do not impair their fitness or merchantability."
(emphasis added.)

The court concluded by saying that not only did courts in California, another coastal state, hold the same, but that even an Ohio case held that someone eating oysters should be expected to look out for pieces of oyster shells. "Thus, while we sympathize with the plaintiff who has suffered a peculiarly New England injury, the order must be exceptions sustained."
(In other words, defendant's appeal upheld.)