In Massey v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 328 P.3d 456 (Idaho 2014) (No. 40504), the Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed a summary judgment for defendant in a case in which the plaintiff alleged that defendant’s poultry pot pies were defective because they contained salmonella.  Based upon expert testimony from an Idaho state deputy epidemiologist, the trial court concluded that salmonella was not an “adulterant” for uncooked food products and consequently, the fact that the defendant’s pot pies contained salmonella did not make them “defective” under Idaho law.  The appellate court observed that the terms “adulterant” and “adulterated” are not terms of art used in Idaho law, but derive from a federal statute addressing the inspection of poultry and poultry products, and deemed it error to equate those terms with the term “defective” under Idaho state law.  The court then held that a product may be “defective” under Idaho law if it is “unreasonably dangerous,” which it defined as “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to is characteristics.”  Thus, whether the pot pies at issue were “defective” under Idaho law remained an open question of fact for trial.  Consequently, the court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court.”