Jury Rules on Causation in Food
Poisoning Case Source of Article: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2008/11/03/95205.htm Food poisoning defendants should not be granted a special, protected
status with a "heightened" standard of causation, the California
Court of Appeal has ruled. According to court documents in Alexis Sarti v.
Salt Creek Ltd., In April 2005, Alexis Sarti and a
friend ate at the Salt Creek Grille, splitting an appetizer consisting of raw
ahi tuna, avocado, cucumbers and soy sauce. Sarti suffered food poisoning and wound up in the
emergency room, where she was put intensive care and diagnosed with guillain-barre syndrome, a disease that damages
peripheral nerves. The bacteria that caused Sarti's
illness is not found in raw tuna, however, unless the tuna has been
cross-contaminated by raw chicken, where the bacteria is common, court
documents state. Sarti's illness was reported to the Orange
County, Calif., Health Department, and four practices at the Salt Creek
Grille were identified that could lead to the cross-contamination: wipe down
rags were not being sanitized between wiping surfaces; there was an
insufficient amount of dishwasher sanitzer; chicken
tongs were sometimes used for other food; and raw vegetables were stored
under the raw meat, so that a drop of raw meat juice might get on the
vegetables. Sarti, who was 21 when she became sick, never
recovered form the illness, and now retains only about 40 percent of what
would have been her normal endurance. She sued the partnership that owns the
Salt Creek Grille for breach of warranty. Court documents state that there was substantial evidence on which the
jury could have found the restaurant not liable, such as Sarti's
friend with whom she split the appetizer did not get sick, and that Sarti worked as a supermarket checker the day she became
ill, and could have picked up the bacteria while scanning grocery items. Yet while the jury did not find the restaurant liable, it returned a
verdict of $725,000 in economic damages, and 2.5 million in non-economic
damages. "The trial judge perceived the jury's verdict was based on the
inference that the practice of using the same wipe down rage or touching
cooked food with chicken tongs that had previously touched raw chicken had
led to cross contamination from raw chicken to raw tuna," court
documents state. And the trial judge believed that Sarti
had presented "the jury with sufficient evidence to avoid a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (jnov)." However, the trial judge had earlier noted that according to Minder v. Cielito Lindo Restaurant, that
indicates "for the black-letter rule of law that inferences are off
limits to prove a food poisoning case." Thus, it was only under the
compulsion of the Minder case that the trial judge granted the restaurant's
motion for jnov, according to court documents. "We can understand why the judge was so cautious, but we do not think
that Minder, strictly construed, should be read to preclude the use of
reasonable inferences to show causation in food poisoning cases. To the
degree that Minder may, arguendo, be susceptible
for the proposition that inferences are unavailable in food poisoning cases,
or that food poisoning defendants are somehow accorded a special, protected
status with an abnormally "heightened" standard of causation, we
respectfully decline to follow it," the court of appeal indicated.
"Despite intimations in the Minder opinion to the contrary, food poisoning
cases are governed by the same basic rules of causation that govern other
tort cases. Reasonable inferences drawn from substantial evidence are indeed
available to show causation. We will therefore reverse the jnov and order reinstatement of the original
verdict." |
Copyright (C) All rights reserved under FoodHACCP.com
If you have any comments, please send your email to info@foodhaccp.com