Family Drinks Milk Containing Dead Mouse For 3 Days, Sues Walmart

I’ve never tasted milk that contained the corpse of a dead mouse, so I can’t say whether or not it would be noticeable, but a couple in Kentucky claim they drank three days’ worth of moused-up milk they’d purchased at Sam’s Club before ever noticing the rotting rodent inside. Now, as happens in these situations, they have filed a lawsuit.

The suit, which was filed earlier this week against Sam’s Club’s parent company Walmart, says the couple purchased the jug of milk at Sam’s and then, with the help of their 23-month-old granddaughter, spent the next three days drinking from it.

On the third day, the woman involved went to pour some milk and “discovered a dead mouse” in the jug.

The gallon of milk — along with the rodent — was taken to the Kentucky Department of Public Health where the couple filed a written complaint.

According to the suit, the family “suffered embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress.”

The plaintiffs also claim that their granddaughter had blood in her stool after consuming the allegedly contaminated milk.

“This has been a traumatic experience for the Grants,” says their lawyer. “They were completely shocked.”

In addition to Walmart, the suit names Superior Dairy Inc., of Ohio, as a defendant. The family is seeking non-economic and punitive damages through a trial by jury.

Without having much to go on here, what’s your gut instinct on the plaintiffs’ allegations — scam or the real deal?

Louisville KY Injury News: Family Sues Walmart After Finding Dead Mouse In Milk []


Edit Your Comment

  1. colorisnteverything says:

    Uck. I have milk from Sam’s in my fridge. Thankfully, I am pretty close to the bottom and no dead mouse!

    • LACubsFan says:

      I don’t get why they are so mad…. The company is giving them extra protein in the milk and they are upset?

  2. BadgerPudding says:

    Always skeptical of these incidents. Did they also find a finger in their Wendy’s chili?

    • DJ Charlie says:

      Agreed. There’s no way they wouldn’t notice something like that floating in the milk.

      • NarcolepticGirl says:

        unless it wasn’t a see-through gallon. Like T.G. Lee or Mayfield – they use yellow gallons.

        But I don’t see how a mouse would be able to get in through the mouth of the gallon.
        How would it fit and flow right in?

        • The Porkchop Express says:

          mice can fit through just about anything the size of or larger than the skull. A gallon jug has enough of an opening that a mouse would fit.

          • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

            yeah. A mouse, depending on its age, can squeeze through holes the size of a dime.

            • lordargent says:

              Yes, a mouse can FIT into the jug, but how can a mouse GET into the jug?

              Was he in the empty jug at the factory, and met a milky end?

              Or, did it somehow slip and fall into a full jug of milk sometime between when the milk was poured in and the cap was put on?

              Or was he in the entire vat of milk, and got pumped into the jug?

              • MrEvil says:

                If this were 35-40 years ago, I’d say that it’s possible the mouse could have gotten into a bottle before it was sealed. However, modern milk plants move so quickly there’s no time for a mouse to get in an unsealed jug. The holding tanks are closed off as well. Only thing I can figure is that the mouse was already trapped inside the jug…which I find highly suspect. Mice only hang around sources of food and secluded shelter. A milk jug provides neither. That, and the mouse would have chewed his way out of the jug LONG before he could have met his milky end.

                The fact these folks are only suing for embarassment and NOT medical bills has me highly dubious. Then again, there’s nothing more un-American than a big cash settlement you actually deserve.

        • 451.6 says:

          It could be a young mouse. Baby mice are tiny enough to fit in the spout of a jug and none too swift. Even my old roommate’s hapless cat managed to catch a baby mouse.

        • thisistobehelpful says:

          Mice are very small, even full grown ones. Go to a pet store and check it out. I’m surprised how big people think mice really are. Those guys can fit through a hole the size of a quarter no problem. I’ve had a few and all their little wooden block things had very tiny holes. They’re bendy and squishy like cats. Wild mice are even smaller than domestic ones.

      • DariusC says:

        Scam. They aren’t suing for their health? I guess that is measurable money wise. Just some poor redneck family that lived beyond their means and went poor and is now looking for a way to rob an honest business of their money.

        • JennyDB says:

          Walmart… an honest business? HA!

          • DariusC says:

            The milk company :D

          • a354174 says:

            Wal*Mart is extremely honest and Ethical. They strive to make their customers happy.

            Have you noticed the safety they implement at all of their stores. Look at all the painted lines in their parking lot for yields. Different color lines even, red for fire lane, etc etc. Kroger’s doesn’t have any of that and also have higher prices.

            Just my 2 cents.

          • dragonvpm says:

            Wal-Mart is reasonably honest for a business.

            Maybe not hugely ethical but ethics != honesty.

      • whitecat says:

        Why not? If it was a paper carton, they’d never see it until the milk level was low. And who says it was floating?

  3. Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ) says:

    Mice like cheese
    Cheese is made from milk.

    Sounds like a pretty smart mouse. Not smart enough to not die, but, still.

    Where is NIMH again?

  4. RickinStHelen says:

    Initial thought is, it is a scam, which most of these turn out to be. Second thought, they are sueing Walmart for a sealed product manufactured by someone else. Shouldn’t Superior Dairy be the primary defendant here?

    • BadgerPudding says:

      Walmart has deeper pockets.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        Yeah but Wal-Mart, not being the manufacturer, isn’t responsible for what happens at the factory floor unless Wal-Mart operates its own dairy factories. If they get any money at all, it’d be from the dairy company that supplied the milk to that Sam’s Club.

        • allknowingtomato says:

          No, they absolutely can recover from wal-mart. It’s called strict products liability. You sell a defective product? you’re liable to the plaintiff regardless of who made the product defective. This is obviously a gross simplification of the legal doctrine, see my above post explaining the right of contribution. But you’re wrong; a plaintiff can recover fully from wal-mart for something that is the fault of the dairy. Wal-mart in turn can recover fully from the producer if they in fact are completely at fault.
          (still not a lawyer etc.)

        • JMILLER says:

          The plaintiff can sue Wal Mart, and Wal Mart likely requires their supplier to have a hold harmless in which they agree to pay the damages of these suits. Based on your concept, a car manufacturer would never be responsible for a failed part that was built by a third party. If I bought an Explorer that had defective tires made by say FIRESTONE, I would sue Ford, who would then sue Firestone. But what about a defective brake system. Tell me who made the brakes in your car? Most people do not know. SO liability needs to go to the last person in the chain.

    • NarcolepticGirl says:

      Yeah, I see that type of thing frequently. i don’t understand it.

    • allknowingtomato says:

      (IANAL yet etc.) When these sorts of things happen, the plaintiffs can usually sue every entity in the chain of production and distribution that sold the product in the defective condition. So every company starting with the producer (dairy) through the chain to the consumer is sue-able. This way the plaintiff does not have the (usually impossible) task of proving who in the chain rendered the product defective. (it also admittedly lets the plaintiff find the deepest pockets and sue them first). The various producers/distributors/retailers can sue each other if any one defendant has paid more than his/her fair share of the liability. This is called the right of contribution.

      Here, it looks like the milk was sealed up with the mouse in it, and so presumably the mouse got in at the producer level. That still means sam’s club was selling milk in a defective condition, and so they may still be liable. Sam’s club will turn around and sue the dairy, claiming it’s the dairy’s fault. This should allow the ultimate cost to fall on whoever is at fault.

      • gerald.saul says:

        And allow the lawyers to rack up fees for their services?

        • allknowingtomato says:

          Yes, people generally tend to get paid for the work they do. I bet you rack up all sorts of wages/salary at your job, too.

          If we didn’t allow suits to go up the chain of mfr/distribution like this in determining liability, the plaintiff who bought the defective product would be have to prove exactly who was responsible at the initial lawsuit level. The average plaintiff who just bought a faulty product is way less equipped to figure that out during their lawsuit than that the businesses in the chain of possession. Did the break leave the factory defective? was it damaged in transit, during installation, during transit to the dealership, at the dealership? who do you want to be paying those litigation costs? the people most equipped to answer the question, not the ultimate consumer.

          Don’t want to pay a lawyer? Don’t sue over mice in your milk. Or settle if there is any chance of merit. Or hell, do the litigation yourself, you’re always welcome to do that. What’s that? it’s super hard and boring and time consuming? maybe that’s why lawyers are expensive.

          • Trai_Dep says:

            Doesn’t Wal-Mart have a policy of always taking cases to court, never settling, as a way to intimidate people who think they’ve been wronged by them?
            It seems that corporations want it both ways – clogging the courts unnecessarily when they should simply admit wrongdoing and settle, then send out their PR minions to hype up the “lawyers are money-seeking* shysters” message out of the other side of their mouth.

            * Professionals seeking just compensation for their labors in a Capitalist market, in other words.

      • Commenter24 says:

        This is generally accurate, but strict products cases usually involve indemnification rather than contribution.

        • allknowingtomato says:

          I thought indemnification was for employer-employee and other principal/agent situations, whereas contribution was allocating the appropriate liability among the defendants…does the right to indemnification in SPL come from a warranty included in the sale of the good?

          • Commenter24 says:

            The right to indemnification in SPL cases is implied at law. Walmart’s SP liability is due solely to the manufacturer’s mistake. Under SPL, Walmart is not at fault but is liable. Walmart is thus entitled to indemnification from the party who is actually at fault. Contibution would only apply of Walmart was at least partially at fault.

    • msbask says:

      To add to what’s already been written, the Dairy has probably included Wal-Mart on their insurance policy as a “Vendor”> This could/should normally mean that the Dairy’s insurance carrier will provide defense and/or indemnity for Wal-Mart.

  5. El_Fez says:

    Emotional distress? Sure – drinking that shit would be nasty and freak me out too. Embarrassment? Humiliation? Sorry but those two don’t wash.

  6. JayPhat says:

    I’m gonna say no to this one. Seeing as how I have seen the production process for milk, I HIGHLY doubt theres anyway a mouse could have ended up in the container.

    • Sparkstalker says:

      Indeed…we did the Mayfield Dairy tour last time we were in Tennessee, and I really don’t see how it would be possible…

    • topgun says:

      I too agree. It didn’t say if it was paperboard or plastic. Paperboard would be even more difficult to contaminate. If it was plastic wouldn’t you think they would have seen it sooner? And you’re right, from what I’ve seen in packaging plants, especially dairy, it seems about as impossible as breaking into Ft. Knox. A lot of the packaging machinery has high speed electric eyes that can see any foreign object.

  7. Redeemed says:

    Umm I just drank my first sip of coffee. Thanks for the churning feeling now coming from my stomach. I’m sort of glad that my milk comes in glass bottles which I then transfer into a pitcher that fits in my fridge. But still. Blechhh.

  8. NarcolepticGirl says:

    Suing for embarrassment? Why?
    Were they embarrassed that they didn’t notice there was a dead mouse in the milk for three days?
    or were they drinking it in front of an audience when they discovered the mouse?

    How does a mouse get inside of a gallon of milk anyway?

    • El_Fez says:

      were they drinking it in front of an audience when they discovered the mouse?

      Performance art!

      (Hell, I might pay to see that)

    • El_Fez says:

      were they drinking it in front of an audience when they discovered the mouse?

      Performance art!

      (Hell, I might pay to see that)

    • Peacock (Now In Extra Crispy) says:

      They probably purchased their eyeglasses at Sam’s Club, too. Ergo, the inability to see said mouse in the container of milk in the first place.

      That being said, I still call shenanigans. How do you drink from a container of milk for 3 days and not notice that there’s something, er, funkified–mousified–about it?

  9. Rachacha says:

    “suffered embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress.”

    I can by the emotional distress (the ick factor and concerns about what potential diseases there might be), and perhaps some medical issues (pending an investigation of the mouse to see if there were any diseases) , but embarrassment & humiliation? Really? Did the Kentucky Department of Health come to their home, throw a yellow containment tent over the house and force the family to strip for decontamination in their driveway while the neighbors looked on (ala E.T.). If so, then I can buy the embarrassment and humiliation, otherwise, just stick with the emotional distress.

  10. womynist says:

    Pics or it didn’t happen. I wanna see this dead mouse.

  11. 451.6 says:

    Honestly, I can’t blame them. If that had happened to me, I’m the type of person who’d never be able to drink a carton of milk again. I feel the urge to upchuck just thinking about it. Ugh.

    It’s not surprising that they’re suing Walmart. It’s the more well-known party here. Although, “seeking damages through a trial by jury” is a bit odd. Walmart didn’t try to settle? I would think avoiding bad publicity would be worth it.

    • Supes says:

      Wal-Mart very, very rarely settles lawsuits, and only when they are clearly at fault (usually not even then). They have a policy of fighting everything. Which I can kind of understand. They would rather spend $500,000 on lawyer fees to avoid a $10,000 settlement, on the thinking if they settle it would just encourage others to sue.

      When people have potential lawsuits, even legitimate ones, they want to hire lawyers on a contingency basis. Lawyers see the hundreds of hours they will have to spend to even have a *chance* at seeing any money, it makes them a lot more reluctant to accept these cases.

      • allknowingtomato says:

        Except that most contingency fee agreements from even remotely reputable attorneys still provide the attorney a reasonable fee for his/her work in the event of a loss, just not as much as a win/settlement would pay.

  12. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    If this is a scam, what kinds of charges will be brought against the alleged victims? Attempting to defraud? Filing a false report? 1st degree murder of a rodent?

  13. Hoss says:

    There’s nothing in the process of harvesting milk that would allow a mouse in the stuff.

    • dadelus says:

      But what about the process of manufactering, transporting, and storing empty milk jugs?

      • Destron says:

        The dairy near me blows the milk jugs and fills them their selves, I would think most major dairies would use a similar process.

    • thisistobehelpful says:

      Beyond the part where cows are milked in very large barns that aren’t completely sealed off from the world and have food and hay that mice would be attracted to? The cows, no matter how large the farm is and how industrialized, are located very closely to their grazing and feed troughs. There are absolutely ways mice can get in and reasons they would want to.

      And here’s an educational video

  14. zibby says:

    Humiliation? All they had to do to avoid that was keep the affair to themselves, no?

  15. zibby says:

    Total scam.

  16. Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

    I really don’t understand why Wal Mart is being sued.

  17. scientific progress goes boink says:

    not really the same, but years ago my brother’s friend ate from a bag of chips for a couple days before discovering there was a rotting mouse in the bag.

  18. Shtetl G says:

    Looks like some one was watching Strange Brew recently.

  19. msky says:

    Thats a really dumb way to extort money. At least that ‘McDonalds coffee cup’ case was original…

  20. Trevor says:

    Um….isn’t milk pasteurized or ultra pasteurized…so wouldn’t the mouse have been pasteurized as well….probably how it ended up dying if it didn’t drown. Point is, while gross, wouldn’t it have been mostly non-dangerous?

    • Rachacha says:

      Depends on where in the process the mouse made it into the system. I believe that milk is pasturized in large vats before bottling, so if the mouse was hanging out in the bottling machine and decided to take a plunge in the milk, it would have been introduced after the pasturization process. However, had the mouse made it into the system prior to pasturization, then it would have gone through the process as well, but because the density of a mouse is different from the density of milk, it may not have reached a temperature to kill harmful bacteria.

      • lockdog says:

        I can’t figure the mouse in vat of milk at any point in the process. The mouse would fit in the milk jug, sure. But I can’t see it fitting through the nozzle that fills the bottles. The caps go on immediately after filling, so the mouse going for a swim seems unlikely too. Best guess: somewhere in the facility is a room or warehouse full of boxes of empty, uncapped jugs. So a mouse could have theoretically made it into a jug before it was filled, if there’s not a a system in place to check the weight of the jugs when empty before filling.

    • bonzombiekitty says:

      Pasteurization happens before the milk goes into a container. So theoretical series of events is a milk jug is moving down the line, the mouse crawls in, the jug is filled with milk and capped before the mouse could escape, and the mouse dies.

  21. zekebullseye says:

    I found a maggot in my milk once. I didn’t drink milk for years after that. I didn’t sue anyone, though. I was certainly grossed out but not humiliated in the least.

    • Hoss says:

      The time between a fly laying an egg and a maggot emerging is about one-half day. The container may have been left open at home when the infestation happened. But was the maggot in cereal? It’s easier to envision this happening with dry goods or fruit

  22. Eat The Rich -They are fat and succulent says:


    All the defendant would have to do is show the jurors the process of manufacturing, processing and packaging milk. There is no physical way a mouse could get inside a jug of milk during any of those processes.

    Except….if the mouse was inside the milk jug prior to it being routed thru the filling stations. However the jugs are washed and sterilized prior to the milk being injected into them and they are immediately sealed with a foil cap and lid.

  23. SerenityDan says:

    Uhhh if they found it 3 days after it was opened how do they know it didn’t crawl in AFTER they opened it. Left the lid off and turned your back? Mice as quick buggers. I think that a dead mouse would make Milk taste horrible and tell you something was up before day 3.

    • NarcolepticGirl says:

      good point

    • Bunnies Attack! says:

      My question for that would be… how would a mouse climb up the side of a milk carton by itself? Alternately, how did it jump 6x it’s body height and just happen to land perfectly on the hole? Seems pretty impossible… 1/4″ off center and it slides to the floor.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        You’d be surprised. Mice are really adept at climbing. And since it was a gallon of milk, I think it was most likely a plastic jug because the paper cartons are usually reserved for smaller quantities.

        In my kitchen there’s the counter and then the bar above it. A mouse could be so inclined to get into an open jug of milk if the jug opening was about the height of the bar above the counter.

    • Thumbmaster says:

      My thoughts too. Even if it’s not a scam, it’s certainly a very defensible case. You can’t prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the mouse did not enter the jug at your own home, after 3 long days.

  24. dr_drift says:

    First instinct? Scam. But seriously, it would be horrific if it were true. Luckily, I run all my bottled liquids through a strainer before consuming them. Also, I wear tissue boxes as shoes.

    Lastly, inb4 worm in tequila bottle joke.

  25. lemur says:

    From the writeup:

    “what’s your gut instinct on the plaintiffs’ allegations — scam or the real deal?”

    How about showing some restraint and refraining from deciding on the basis of very scant information? How about that?

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      What is your problem?

      As you note the write up said “what’s your gut instinct on the plaintiffs’ allegations — scam or the real deal?”

      No one is Deciding anything. People are discussing the various ways this might or might not have happened. It’s a DISCUSSION. There no reason people can’t discuss this even if they aren’t privy to every single fact there is about it.

  26. HogwartsProfessor says:


    Wouldn’t you notice something…off? I get an air bubble in my milk and I’m freaking out. I guzzle the stuff, so this would really upset me!

  27. kataisa says:

    Just reading about this has traumatized me from drinking milk for life. I’m gonna sue!

  28. Mangy66 says:

    Clear beverages in clear containers for me from now on. BLEH!!!

  29. JMILLER says:

    “According to the suit, the family “suffered embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress.””

    1. embarrassment is not a cause of action. If it were I could be suing my grandfather for wearing Bermuda shorts with block socks pulled up to his knees and sandels and taking me out with him in public as a child. were they humiliated and/ or embarrassed? Nobody would know about it, if they didnt sue. That is on them
    3. Emotional distress? Come on? If there was disease, or other issues, they can file for pain and suffering (the mouse caused them to get some disease) Have the doctor link the bloody feces to the milk and they have a case, but I doubt they can or will.

    There is plenty to hate about Sams Club and Wal Mart. IF we accept they sold milk with a mouse, they should refund the defective product, and MAYBE a medical check up. All the rest is a money grab

  30. Beeker26 says:

    Seriously, don’t these people shake their milk before they pour?

  31. DanKelley98 says:

    I find this far-fetched. But I’ve been wrong before…

  32. whackjob72 says:

    If they’re seeking non-economic and punitive damages, that tells me that this may be on the up and up. I’m more skeptical when someone wants money.

    • Commenter24 says:

      Non-economic damages and punitive damages involve money. Non-economic damages include things like pain and suffering; punitive damages are money damages designed to punish the defendant rather than compensate plaintiff.

  33. Andy S. says:

    Haven’t basically all stories like this turned out to be scams or hoaxes? The lady who found a syringe in her can of Pepsi was a scammer. The finger in the Wendy’s chili was a scam. The McDonald’s fried chicken head was real, but at least it was proof that McNuggets are made with actual chicken.

  34. TheBigWhiteWolf says:

    Are they sure it wasn’t a moldy slice of apple?

  35. drbtx1 says:

    I know the refrigerator would slow down the decay process, but a dead body will swell with gases and float in liquid by the 3rd day. This story just doesn’t ring true.

  36. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    I’m suspecting the mouse climbed in when the family left the lid off. The mouse would drown because a milk jug would be impossible to escape from. Expect counter-suit for defamation.

  37. erratapage says:

    Consumerist and the family are going to get sued by Disney over this one.

  38. Jimmy37 says:

    PUH-LEEZE. WHAT A SCAM. Like these people couldn’t taste a dead mouse?? That milk would have gotten rancid immediately just from the bacteria in the mouse.

  39. Jimmy37 says:

    I think I’m going to sue these scammers for duress for lying about such a disgusting thing.

  40. zandar says:

    all i can say is, no way did could they not taste decomposing mouse in their milk. granted, it was refrigerated, but the mouse had been dead for at least a week before even buying the milk. Unless it’s in an aseptic package (most cow’s milk is not), decomposition will happen. Even more so once oxygen hits it from use. Really seems very, very unlikely this would not have gone unnoticed.

  41. hypochondriac says:

    I think it’s Scam

  42. RookOmega says:

    Some questions I would ask:
    Why didn’t the mouse pour out on the first cup? (if it was floating)

    How long was the mouse dead for?

    Did it have milk in it’s lungs?

    Is it possible for the mouse to get inside the milk after they initially opened the bottle?

    What type of mouse was it? Is it specific to Ohio or Kentucky (there could be differences – stomach content could be checked)

    Why did the child have blood in her stool while the grandparents did not?

    • Eat The Rich -They are fat and succulent says:

      Wonder if there are obvious external differences between an Ohio and a Kentucky mouse? Like one has a mullet and the other has a banjo or something?

  43. Tiandli says:

    Dead mouse or insect or finger in one carton could mean the entire batch was contaminated.

  44. framitz says:

    It certainly could be real.

    I once had a girlfriend that found a mouse in a bottle of major brand soda, I saw it, it was real, I don’t know how it got in the bottle, but it was a baby mouse.

    She collected $30,000 back in 1972.

  45. arcoiris says:

    I don’t drink Milk from another species, especially milk from mouse glands. But then again, what color is mouse milk? I dunno… maybe the KY Mouse-Jelly family didn’t know either and assumed cow milk. I reckon the mouse went American style all-you-can-drink-cow-milk buffet and ended up as a brown stain at the bottom of the jug. *shrug*

  46. NydiaGeben says:

    I don’t believe this story. … They are trying to cash in.

  47. Duckula22 says:

    Where did I leave that grain of salt?

  48. Rain says:

    This wouldn’t have happened if their milk came in bags. O Canada

  49. common_sense84 says:

    The problem is there are no damages. No one got sick and you can’t make them pay for your mental issues.

  50. Mr. Pottersquash says:

    Walmart doesnt have to wait to lose suit, Walmart can bring in the manufacture at the trial level.

    dont worry ppl, Walmart will be alright

  51. EverCynicalTHX says:

    “suffered embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress.”

    That says it all IMHO ===someone is looking for a payday.

  52. CapZap says:


  53. elangomatt says:

    I vote for scam as well. I wonder if the dairy makes their own bottles or if they bring the bottles in already made. I would imagine that the bigger operations would blow out their own bottles from blanks in factory thus decreasing by a ton the likelihood that this is a legitimate claim. If the bottles come into the factory premade, I would think that they would have to do some kind of sterilization before bottling to ensure they are clean (and mousefree). I wonder if there is any way of telling how long the mouse had been in the bottle based on the amount of decomposition. They could even do a test like on CSI and get a couple jugs of milk, stick a mouse in them, put them in the fridge, and pour a few cups of milk off every day until the end of the 3 days.

  54. Shops4Fun says:

    Probably a scam. It’s a very contained process. They will actually examine the mouse to see if it had any milk in it’s system (went in the empty container alive before the milk and drowned) or if the mouse’s neck was broken and already dead (no milk will be in the mouse) when put in the milk. We had an incident once where a disgruntled employee killed a mouse and put it in the container before the milk and that is how he was found out.

  55. JimmyRoy says:

    Some things to consider…

    The milk was in their possession for 3 days and when the container was brought to the authorities, it was already open. They will likely be challenged to prove that the rodent did not get into the container while it was in their possession. Hint: the mouse DNA can be tested and its approximate origin location might be determinable. If it is related to Ohio mice in the area of the dairy, then that is one thing. If it matches that of mice in or around the plaintiff’s location, that is another. As with the coke-can hypodermic fraud of a few years ago, an examination of the manufacturing process may show that it is possible or impossible for a rodent to have access to the container. It seems unlikely that the rodent could have gotten into the container during storage or shipping as that would have caused a leak and would have been noticeable.

  56. gc3160thtuk says you got your humor in my sarcasm and you say you got your sarcasm in my humor says:

    Yeh because Sam’s and Walmart have cows in the back and they milk them and bottle the milk themselves. And last time I checked Sam’s had see through Milk cartons. I call shenanigans.

  57. pot_roast says:

    Sounds like Bob & Doug McKenzie taking a trip to the beer store.

  58. Miss Dev (The Beer Sherpa) says:

    No way. First, there would be an off-taste. Second, having worked in a plant that bottles beverages, it is nigh impossible for something the size of a mouse to contaminate the inside of beverage containers.

  59. brch2 says:

    “The plaintiffs also claim that their granddaughter had blood in her stool after consuming the allegedly contaminated milk.”

    So, did they take her to the doctor? If so, then there will be a medical record that would indicate some disease or infection that could be gotten from a dead rat. If not… then this claim by itself is pretty much strong enough evidence that they’re lying. Besides, how do you not notice a dead rat in a milk jug?