In Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc. (Ala. 1983) 431 So.2d 975, the Alabama Supreme Court applied the reasonable expectations test to the plaintiff's claims for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for human consumption and the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Act and held that the presence of a one-centimeter bone in a fish fillet did not render the fish unfit or unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. (Morrison's Cafeteria, supra, 431 So.2d at p. 979.) The Morrison's Cafeteria court explained its holding by observing "that what a consumer is reasonably justified in expecting is a question for the jury. We agree that in most instances this would be true. In other instances, however, we agree with the California Supreme Court in Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co. (1936) 6 Cal.2d 674, wherein the court held: 'Although it may frequently be a question for a jury as the trier of facts to determine whether or not the particular defect alleged rendered the food not reasonably fit for human consumption, yet certain cases present facts from which the court itself may say as a matter of law that the alleged defect does not fall within the terms of the statute.'" (Morrison's Cafeteria, supra, 431 So.2d at p. 978.) The Morrison's Cafeteria court then concluded that as a matter of law, a restaurant patron should reasonably expect to find a fish bone in a fish filet, observing "courts cannot and must not ignore the common experience of life and allow rules to develop that would make sellers of food or other consumer goods insurers of the products they sell." (Id. at p. 979.)