In Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court (1992) 1 Cal.4th 617, the California Supreme Court "articulated principles of liability in the context of a diner's injuries caused by food served in a restaurant." In Mexicali Rose, the plaintiff sued a restaurant for negligence, strict liability, and breach of the implied warranty, alleging he suffered throat injuries from ingesting a one-inch chicken bone in a chicken enchilada. He alleged the defendant "negligently left the bone in the enchilada and the food was unfit for human consumption. He also asserted he did not expect to find a bone, and it is not common knowledge there may be bones in chicken enchiladas." (Mexicali Rose, supra, at p. 620.) The trial court overruled the demurrer, but the Court of Appeal "issued a writ of mandate, directing the trial court to sustain the demurrer on all causes of action." (Ibid.) The California high court granted review to reexamine the foreign-natural test of liability set forth in Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co. (1936) 6 Cal.2d 674, which held there could be no tort liability for injuries caused by substances "natural" to certain types of food. (Mexicali Rose, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 619; see also Ford, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1201.) The court used the term "natural" to refer "to bones and other substances natural to the product served" and not to "substances such as mold, botulinus bacteria or other substances (like rat flesh or cow eyes) not natural to the preparation of the product served." (Mexicali Rose, supra, at p. 630, fn. 5.) The Mexicali Rose court discarded the foreign-natural test in favor of the reasonable expectation test and explained, "First, whether bones or other injurious substances ought to be anticipated in a particular dish becomes a question for the trier of fact, unless as a matter of law the food was fit for consumption because the substance was natural to the food served. Second, and more important, this reasonable expectation test focuses not on the components of the dish, but on the final item sold to the consumer and the expectations that are engendered by the type of dish and the type of preparation used in making the dish." (Mexicali Rose, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 631.) The Mexicali Rose court then noted, "we agree with defendants to the extent they reason that a restaurant patron cannot expect a chicken pie to be free of all bones. Such an expectation would be unreasonable and unrealistic to the ordinary consumer and would not conform to either federal or state health and safety standards. . . . A reasonable plaintiff cannot expect a chicken enchilada always to be free of bones, and defendants owe no duty to provide a perfect enchilada." (Mexicali Rose, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 631-632.) The court also noted, however, that it "disagreed with defendants . . . that we should continue to preclude a plaintiff from attempting to state a cause of action in negligence when a substance natural to the preparation of the food product has caused injury. We adopt instead the reasoning of Loyacano, supra, 283 So.2d 302, 306, and Morrison's Cafeteria, supra, 431 So.2d at page 978, and depart from our foreign-natural rule to the extent it precludes an action against defendants for the failure to exercise due care in the preparation of the chicken enchilada." (Mexicali Rose, supra, at p. 632.) The Mexicali Rose court held that "whether a plaintiff may recover for injuries caused by a natural or foreign substance can be summarized as follows: If the injury-producing substance is natural to the preparation of the food served, it can be said that it was reasonably expected by its very nature and the food cannot be determined to be unfit for human consumption or defective. Thus, a plaintiff in such a case has no cause of action in implied warranty or strict liability." (Mexicali Rose, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 630-631.) The court continued, "The expectations of the consumer do not, however, negate a defendant's duty to exercise reasonable care in the preparation and service of the food. Therefore, if the presence of the natural substance is due to a defendant's failure to exercise due care in the preparation of the food, an injured plaintiff may state a cause of action in negligence." (Id. at p. 631.)