A 34-year-old woman suffered food poisoning while dining at a Manhattan Beach restaurant, leading to severe illness and pre-term labor. Despite disputes over liability, CAG recovered $250,000 on her behalf.
Plaintiff, a 34 year old female, was a pregnant customer celebrating her birthday inside Defendant’s restaurant located in Manhattan Beach, CA. Plaintiff was having lunch with her fiancé and son at 12:30 p.m., during which time they ordered the mix and match ribs with mashed potatoes and veggies. Approximately one hour later, Plaintiff began to develop severe abdominal pain, and started to vomit. Plaintiff’s fiancé also began to develop an upset stomach, and had to rush to the restroom, and ultimately Plaintiff ended up in the hospital as a result of uncontrollable vomiting and severe dehydration.
The California Department of Public Health states - “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one in six, or 48 million Americans contract a foodborne illness each year. Of those that become sick, nearly 128,000 people will be hospitalized and 3,000 will die as a result of their illness.”
Under Part 7 of California’s Retail Food Code, Chapter 4, pages 32-50, thoroughly discuses General Food Safety Requirements, as highlighted in Articles 1 through 8.
Furthermore, in Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd. (2008) Cal.Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, plaintiff became ill after eating raw tuna at a restaurant, and after suffering diarrhea for ten days, her condition deteriorated, and she went to the hospital. Expert testimony later indicated that plaintiff’s Builian-Barre syndrome was an idiosyncratic immunosuppressant reaction to constant diarrhea caused by campylobacter. Campylobacter can occur when raw tuna that has been cross-contaminated by raw chicken.
Later it was reported by the county health agency, that there are four practices at a restaurant that could lead to cross-contamination. These practices included failure to sanitize wipe-down rags, failure to sanitize the dishwasher, use of chicken tongs on other food, and storing vegetables under raw meat. Therefore, although there may have been other patrons who ordered the same plate as Plaintiff on the date of the subject incident and did not become ill, there is a high probability that their food was not cross-contaminated.
Lastly, the court flatly rejected the proposition that food poisoning cases should be governed by anything other than traditional tort principles of causation, which permit a jury to find causation based on reasonable inference. The court concluded that the jury in the instant case could reasonably have found that plaintiff’s injury was caused by consuming contaminated food at the restaurant, based on the evidence of unsanitary practices that could cause the particular type of infection that plaintiff contracted. The court rejected the restaurant’s argument that plaintiff was required to rule out other possible causes of her injury, finding that such a standard would be inconsistent with the “substantial factor” rule of causation set forth by California Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Gonzalez (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 1041, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 913.
As a result of her food poisoning, Plaintiff suffered severe abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, including severe dehydration. Over the next seven days Plaintiff suffered from severe abdominal pain and contractions, leading to a prolapsed cord and pre-term labor. Plaintiff’s injuries were significant enough to incur $121,000 in medical expenses. Plaintiff required a cesarean section due to a drop in the fetus heart rate following her food poisoning, abdominal pain and contractions, leading to pre-term birth of her child.
Defendant disputed Plaintiff’s claims for injuries and damages. Defendant also disputed the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s medical treatment. However, through the testimony of expert doctors, it was determined that Plaintiff’s injuries and treatment were reasonable and necessary, considering the severity of his fall. Messrs. Khakshooy and Agarwal were able to recover $250,000 for Plaintiff.
Speak with a lawyer today! Begin your free consultation.
