Real Events Happening Daily to Real People 1 Mead PS, et al., Food-related illness and death in the United States, Emerg Infect Dis. 5:607-614. 1999.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
U.S. Civil Litigation – How it Really Works Strict liability –It is your fault – Period! Negligence –Did you act reasonably? Punitive damages –Did you.
Advertisements

Foodborne Illness CSI: 9th Annual PulseNet Seattle Update Meeting May 9-11, 2005 Cracking the Legal Code.
1 Food Safety in Child Care. 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Estimates  76 million cases of foodborne illness per year  325,000 hospitalizations.
Food Production is a Risky Business  Competitive Markets  Wall Street and Stockholder Pressures for Increasing Profits  Lack of Clear Reward For.
“Poisoned Food: Lawsuits and Food Safety Bill Marler Bill Marler.
A Houston area church organization notified the Texas Department of State Health Services of gastrointestinal illness among attendees at its annual bazaar.
CAUTION— Germs Hiding Welcome participants and ask everyone to sign the attendance sheet. If you would like to use a pre-test or post-test, use the quiz.
Minimizing Your Liability Risk and Foodborne Illness Lawsuits.
Unit 3 Workspace, Tools and Techniques. Most cases can be traced to MICROORGANISMS= tiny living creatures visible only through a microscope.
Tort Law Part 2 Negligence and Liability. Negligence Most common tort Accidental or Unintentional Tort Failure to show a degree of care that a “reasonable”
The Legal Consequences of Poor Food Safety William D. Marler, Esq.
Food Safe Schools: what‘s it all about? Presentation Objectives  Participants will gain an understanding of the importance of food safety throughout.
Shawn Kise BSN, RN, MS Student.   Have a general knowledge base for the Norovirus.  Understand the process and steps taken in the outbreak investigation.
Microbiological aspects of food safety. Risk? The Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and Food born Diseases (FOS) strives to reduce the serious negative.
Real Events Happening to Real People  76 million cases of foodborne illness annually 1  325,000 hospitalizations  5,000 deaths  Medical costs, productivity.
Contaminated Food - How I do what I do!. Real Events Happening Daily to Real People 1 Mead PS, et al., Food-related illness and death in the United States,
General Food Safety.
14 Annual Australian HACCP Conference August 2, 2007 Queensland, Australia.
1 Litigation Strategies For Responding to Significant Consumer Threats Ken Odza Stoel Rives LLP Cultivating Our Future: New Landscapes in Food and Agricultural.
UAE Food Safety Crosses Borders Ernest Julian, Ph.D., Chief Office of Food Protection RI Department of Health February 24, 2014.
Providing Safe Food Objectives: Recognize the importance of food safety Understand how food becomes unsafe Identify TCS food Recognize the risk factors.
Legal Implications Strict Product Liability The manufacturer of a defective product is liable if the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous,
Food Safety MR. Dixon Intro To Agriculture Fall 2011.
Epidemiology of Foodborne Disease ENVR 421 Mark D. Sobsey.
1 © 2002 and 2006 Province of British Columbia FOODSAFE Level 1 Unit 1 Introduction to FOODSAFE Unit 2 Foodservice Illness and Injury Unit 3 Receiving.
Food Law and Regulation: Looking Ahead to the Future of Food Policy October 24, 2006 Examining Best Practices in Cases of Legal Liability Responding to.
Food Safety Amy Lytle Early Bird AG September 30, 2002.
Keeping Food Safe to Eat! Unit 1. Food-borne Illness = Food Poisoning Most cases can be traced to MICROORGANISMS= tiny living creatures visible only through.
Kitchen Safety Do Now: List 6 important Kitchen Safety rules that we’ve discussed this week on a piece of loose leaf paper.
Foodborne Illness CSI: 1 st International Conference San Francisco, CA November 8, 2006 Cracking the Legal Code.
Foodborne Illness Risks and Prevention USDA NIFSI Food Safety in the Classroom© University of Tennessee, Knoxville 2006.
ABA Food and Supplements Fall Teleconference October 17, 2007.
1 Liability and Risk William D. Marler, Esq.
Contaminated Food – How to Evaluate Risk Liability Claims Subcommittee Meeting Washington DC September 17, 2009.
E. COLI 0157:H7. E.Coli 0157:H7  It is one of the hundreds of strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli  This strain produces a powerful toxin and can.
Pure and Wholesome: Is Food a Risky Business? Pure and Wholesome: Is Food a Risky Business? A Lawyer’s perspective William D. Marler, Esq.
Unit 6 – Civil Law.
Foodborne Illness CSI: Milwaukee North Shore Rotary Club October 23, 2006 Cracking the Legal Code.
1 William D. Marler, Esq. Marler Clark LLP PS “Put me out of business - Please”
How Big is the Food Poisoning Problem?  CDC reports that yearly 76,000,000 are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die as a result of eating.
Investigation and Control of Outbreaks of Foodborne Illness Ralph Cordell, PhD.
Real Events Happening Daily to Real People 1 Mead PS, et al., Food-related illness and death in the United States, Emerg Infect Dis. 5:
1 William D. Marler, Esq. Marler Clark LLP PS “Put me out of business - Please”
1 Consumers vs. Food Companies: Intersection of the Court System and Food Science University of Minnesota Department of Food Science and Nutrition Presented.
Food Safety May 6, 2008 University of Minnesota Does Litigation Help?
1 The Cow, the Pig and the Fence William D. Marler.
Unit 3 Workspace, Tools and Techniques D. LeNeave.
2 2 3 Lettuce and Spinach 8 outbreaks traced back to produce from Salinas, California 8 outbreaks traced back to produce from Salinas, California 21.
Who’s Minding the Store? The Current State of Food Safety
The Legal Standard: Strict Liability Strict Liability Is Liability Without Regard To Fault.  The focus is on the product; not the conduct  They are.
Mass Tort Symposium – New Orleans October 17, 2008 Case Selection/Case Resolution.
Sanitation Challenges
Lettuce and Spinach   Over 23 E. coli outbreaks since 1995 – – Hundreds of reported illnesses – – Several deaths   Fresh or fresh-cut lettuce or spinach.
Keeping food safe to eat Clean, Separate, Cook, Chill WHY????
Allison Smathers A Successful Season – 2011: Marketing Your Market March 11, 2011 Creating a food safety culture at the market.
Foodborne Illness Review St. Michael CHS. What am I going to Learn? This is a review of the foodborne illnesses You will learn the major food illnesses.
Foodborne Illness Litigation
Welcome.
Contaminated Food – Minneapolis How I do what I do!
Welcome.
Food Fight – Is It Covered?
Examining Cases of Legal Liability
Examining Cases of Legal Liability
Lettuce and Spinach Over 23 E. coli outbreaks since 1995
Foodborne Illness and its Impact
Welcome.
Welcome.
UNDERSTANDING FOOD HYGIENE
Presentation transcript:

Real Events Happening Daily to Real People 1 Mead PS, et al., Food-related illness and death in the United States, Emerg Infect Dis. 5: Buzby, et al. Product Liability and Microbial Foodborne Illness (2001)ERS Agricultural Economic Report No million cases of foodborne illness annually 1 76 million cases of foodborne illness annually 1 325,000 hospitalizations 325,000 hospitalizations 5,000 deaths 5,000 deaths Medical costs, productivity losses, costs of premature death costs 6.9 billion dollars a year 2 Medical costs, productivity losses, costs of premature death costs 6.9 billion dollars a year 2

Marler Clark, LLP PS Since 1993 Marler Clark has represented thousands of legitimate food illness victims in every State. Since 1993 Marler Clark has represented thousands of legitimate food illness victims in every State. Only a fraction of the victims who contact our office end up being represented. Only a fraction of the victims who contact our office end up being represented. Who do we turn away? Who do we turn away? Why? Why?

Christening the Carpet I opened a box of Tyson Buffalo wings and saw an unusually shaped piece of chicken and I picked it up. When I saw that the piece had a beak, I got sick to my stomach. My lunch and diet coke came up and I managed to christen my carpet, bedding and clothing. I want them to at least pay for cleaning my carpet etc. I opened a box of Tyson Buffalo wings and saw an unusually shaped piece of chicken and I picked it up. When I saw that the piece had a beak, I got sick to my stomach. My lunch and diet coke came up and I managed to christen my carpet, bedding and clothing. I want them to at least pay for cleaning my carpet etc.

Lending a Helping Hand My husband recently opened a bottle of salsa and smelled an unusual odor but chose to eat it regardless, thinking that it was just his nose. He found what appeared to be a rather large piece of animal or human flesh. He became very nauseated and I feel the manufacturer should be held responsible.

The Chaff Just like health departments we need to quickly and reliably recognize unsupportable claims How Do We Do It?

Basic Tools of the Trade Symptoms Symptoms Incubation Incubation Duration Duration Food History Food History Medical Attention Medical Attention Suspected source Suspected source Others Ill Others Ill Health Department Involvement

Matching Symptoms with Specific Characteristics of Pathogens E. coli O157:H7 E. coli O157:H7 Hepatitis A Hepatitis A Salmonella Salmonella Shigella Shigella Campylobacter Campylobacter Vibrio Vibrio

Matching Incubation Periods Incubation Periods Of Common Pathogens PATHOGENINCUBATION PERIOD Staphylococcus aureus 1 to 8 hours, typically 2 to 4 hours. Campylobacter 2 to 7 days, typically 3 to 5 days. E. coli O157:H7 1 to 10 days, typically 2 to 5 days. Salmonella 6 to 72 hours, typically hours. Shigella 12 hours to 7 days, typically 1-3 days. Hepatitis A15 to 50 days, typically days. Listeria 3 to 70 days, typically 21 days. Norovirus24 to 72 hours, typically 36 hours.

Epidemiologic Assessment Time Time Place Place Person association Person association Part of a recognized outbreak? Part of a recognized outbreak?

Medical Attention Health care provider Health care provider Emergency Room Emergency Room Hospitalization Hospitalization

Health Department Involvement

FOIA/Public Records Request

Communicable Disease Investigation Reportable Disease Case Report Form Reportable Disease Case Report Form Enteric/viral laboratory testing results Enteric/viral laboratory testing results – Human specimens – Environmental specimens

Molecular Testing Results PFGE PFGE PulseNet PulseNet

Traceback Records POS A POS B POS C POS D FIRM A FIRM B FIRM C FIRM D FIRM E FIRM G FIRM H FIRM F FIRM I FIRM J FIRM K FIRM L FIRM M FIRM N FIRM O GROWER A GROWER B GROWER B GROWER D GROWER C Firm Name Firms A,C,D,G, H,I,L,M,N Growers A&C Firms B,E,F,J,K Firm O, Grower D Grower B No. of outbreaks Assoc. with firm/ Total no. of outbreaks 1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4

Prior Health Department Inspections Improper Cooking Procedures Improper Cooking Procedures Improper Refrigeration Improper Refrigeration Improper Storage and Cooking Procedures Improper Storage and Cooking Procedures Improper Sanitation Improper Sanitation

Improper Cooking Procedures Hamburger buns are toasted on the grill immediately adjacent to the cooking patties, and it is conceivable that, early in the cooking process, prior to pasteurization, meat juices and blood containing active pathogens might possibly splash onto a nearby bun. A young girl suffered HUS after eating a hamburger from a midsized southern California fast-food chain. A young girl suffered HUS after eating a hamburger from a midsized southern California fast-food chain. Her illness was not culture-confirmed. Her illness was not culture-confirmed. No food on site tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. No food on site tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. Review of health inspections revealed flaws in cooking methods. Review of health inspections revealed flaws in cooking methods.

Improper Refrigeration A Chinese buffet-restaurant in Ohio was the suspected source of an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. A Chinese buffet-restaurant in Ohio was the suspected source of an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. No contaminated leftover food was found. No contaminated leftover food was found. A number of ill patrons were children. Jell-O was suspected as the vehicle of transmission. A number of ill patrons were children. Jell-O was suspected as the vehicle of transmission. Health Department report noted raw meat stored above the Jell-O in the refrigerator. Health Department report noted raw meat stored above the Jell-O in the refrigerator. The likely source of E. coli O157:H7 in the Jell-O was from raw meat juices dripping on the Jell-O while it was solidifying in the refrigerator.

Improper Storage and Cooking Banquet-goers in tested positive for Salmonella. Banquet-goers in tested positive for Salmonella. Leftover food items had been discarded or tested negative. Leftover food items had been discarded or tested negative. Restaurant had pooled dozens, if not hundreds, of raw eggs in a single bucket for storage overnight, then used them as a wash on a specialty dessert that was not cooked thoroughly. Restaurant had pooled dozens, if not hundreds, of raw eggs in a single bucket for storage overnight, then used them as a wash on a specialty dessert that was not cooked thoroughly.

Civil Litigation – A Tort – How it Really Works Strict liability It is their fault – Period! Negligence Did they act reasonably? Punitive damages Did they act with conscious disregard of a known safety risk?

Strict Liability for Food – a Bit(e) of History … a manufacturer of a food product under modern conditions impliedly warrants his goods… and that warranty is available to all who may be damaged by reason of its use in the legitimate channels of trade… Mazetti v. Armour & Co., 75 Wash. 622 (1913)

Who is a Manufacturer? A manufacturer is defined as a product seller who designs, produces, makes, fabricates, constructs, or remanufactures the relevant product or component part of a product before its sale to a user or consumer…. RCW (2); see also Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co., 120 Wn.2d 246 (1992)

The Legal Standard: Strict Liability STRICT LIABILITY IS LIABILITY WITHOUT REGARD TO FAULT. The focus is on the product; not the conduct The focus is on the product; not the conduct They are liable if: They are liable if: The product was unsafe The product was unsafe The product caused the injury The product caused the injury

Its called STRICT Liability for a Reason The only defense is prevention The only defense is prevention Wishful thinking does not help Wishful thinking does not help If they manufacture a product that causes someone to be sick they are going to pay IF they get caught If they manufacture a product that causes someone to be sick they are going to pay IF they get caught

Why Strict Liability? Puts pressure on those (manufacturers) that most likely could correct the problem in the first place Puts pressure on those (manufacturers) that most likely could correct the problem in the first place Puts the cost of settlements and verdicts directly onto those (manufacturers) that profit from the product Puts the cost of settlements and verdicts directly onto those (manufacturers) that profit from the product Creates incentive not to let it happen again Creates incentive not to let it happen again

Bottom Line Resistance is Futile

The reason for excluding non- manufacturing retailers from strict liability is to distinguish between those who have actual control over the product and those who act as mere conduits in the chain of distribution. Negligence Is The Legal Standard Applied To Non-Manufacturers See Butello v. S.A. Woods-Yates Am. Mach. Co., 72 Wn. App. 397, 404 (1993).

Punitive (or Exemplary) Damages: Punish the defendant for its conduct; Punish the defendant for its conduct; Deter others from similar conduct. Deter others from similar conduct. Historically, such damages were awarded to discourage intentional wrongdoing, wanton and reckless misconduct, and outrageous behavior.

The Legal Arsenal Interrogatories Interrogatories Requests for production Requests for production Requests for inspection Requests for inspection Request for admission Request for admission Third-party subpoenas Third-party subpoenas Depositions Depositions Motions to compel Motions to compel

Litigation At Work – A Bit(e) of History Jack in the Box Odwalla

The Plaintiff

A Real Life Example Benton Franklin Health District OCTOBER 1998 Call from Kennewick General Hospital infection control nurse Call from Kennewick General Hospital infection control nurse Call from elementary school principal Call from elementary school principal

Preliminary Interviews Kennewick General Hospital Kennewick General Hospital Kennewick Family Medicine Kennewick Family Medicine Interview tool Interview tool – Knowledge of community – Asked questions from answers

Case Finding Established communication with area laboratories, hospitals and physicians Established communication with area laboratories, hospitals and physicians Notified the Washington State Department of Health Epidemiology office Notified the Washington State Department of Health Epidemiology office Established case definition early and narrowed later Established case definition early and narrowed later

Finley Schools Finley School District Finley School District – K-5 – Middle School – High School Rural area Rural area – Water supply – Irrigation water – Septic system – Buses

Epidemiologic Investigation Classroom schedules Classroom schedules Bus schedules Bus schedules Lunch schedules Lunch schedules Recess schedules Recess schedules Case-Control Study Case-Control Study Cohort Study of Staff Cohort Study of Staff Cohort Study of Meals Purchased Cohort Study of Meals Purchased

Environmental Investigation Playground Equipment Playground Equipment – Puddles – Topography – Animals Water system Water system Sewage system Sewage system

Hand Rails Hand Rails Dirty Can Opener Dirty Can Opener Army Worms Army Worms Stray dogs Stray dogs Environmental Investigation

Kitchen inspection Kitchen inspection Food prep review Food prep review Food sample collection Food sample collection Product trace back Product trace back Central store Central store USDA USDA

Results 8 confirmed cases of E. coli O157:H7 8 confirmed cases of E. coli O157:H7 3 probable cases 3 probable cases 1 secondary case 1 secondary case 8 PFGE matches 8 PFGE matches

Results Ill students in grades K-5 Ill students in grades K-5 All but one ill child at a taco meal All but one ill child at a taco meal No other common exposures detected No other common exposures detected No ill staff members No ill staff members

Results Food handling errors were noted in the kitchen Food handling errors were noted in the kitchen There was evidence of undercooked taco meat There was evidence of undercooked taco meat No pathogen found in food samples No pathogen found in food samples

Conclusions Point source outbreak related to exposure at Finley Elementary School Point source outbreak related to exposure at Finley Elementary School A source of infection could not be determined A source of infection could not be determined The most probable cause was consuming the ground beef taco The most probable cause was consuming the ground beef taco

The Lawsuit Eleven minor plaintiffs: 10 primary cases, 1 secondary case Eleven minor plaintiffs: 10 primary cases, 1 secondary case Parents also party to the lawsuit, individually and as guardians ad litem Parents also party to the lawsuit, individually and as guardians ad litem Two defendants: Finley School District and Northern States Beef Two defendants: Finley School District and Northern States Beef

The Basic Allegations Students at Finley Elementary School were infected with E. coli O157:H7 as a result of eating contaminated taco meat Students at Finley Elementary School were infected with E. coli O157:H7 as a result of eating contaminated taco meat The E. coli O157:H7 was present in the taco meat because it was undercooked The E. coli O157:H7 was present in the taco meat because it was undercooked The resulting outbreak seriously injured the plaintiffs, almost killing one of them The resulting outbreak seriously injured the plaintiffs, almost killing one of them

At Trial: The Plaintiffs Case The State and the BFHD conducted a fair and thorough investigation The State and the BFHD conducted a fair and thorough investigation Final report issued by the WDOH concluded the taco meat was the most likely cause of the outbreak Final report issued by the WDOH concluded the taco meat was the most likely cause of the outbreak The conclusion reached as a result of the investigation was the correct one The conclusion reached as a result of the investigation was the correct one

More of The Plaintiffs Case There were serious deficiencies in the Districts foodservice operation There were serious deficiencies in the Districts foodservice operation There were reasons to doubt the Districts explanation of how the taco meat was prepared There were reasons to doubt the Districts explanation of how the taco meat was prepared The law only requires a 51% probability to prove the outbreaks cause-in-fact The law only requires a 51% probability to prove the outbreaks cause-in-fact

The School Districts Defense The taco meat was safe to eat because: The taco meat was safe to eat because: – We love children – We are always careful to cook it a lot

The Taco Meal Recipe Card Its not our fault, someone sold us contaminated beef

More of the School Districts Defense Weve never poisoned anyone before Weve never poisoned anyone before The health departments botched the investigation and jumped to a hasty conclusion The health departments botched the investigation and jumped to a hasty conclusion Something else caused the outbreak Something else caused the outbreak

What Will a Jury Think? A Jury = 12 Consumers

What Did This Jury Think? The investigation was fair and thorough The investigation was fair and thorough More probably than not, undercooked taco meat caused the children to become ill More probably than not, undercooked taco meat caused the children to become ill The School District was ultimately responsible for ensuring the safety of the food it sold to its students The School District was ultimately responsible for ensuring the safety of the food it sold to its students

In The End After a six week trial, plaintiffs were awarded $4,750,000 After a six week trial, plaintiffs were awarded $4,750,000 The District appealed the verdict on grounds that product liability law did not apply The District appealed the verdict on grounds that product liability law did not apply September 2003 the WA State Supreme Court dismissed the Districts case September 2003 the WA State Supreme Court dismissed the Districts case Final award - $6,068, Final award - $6,068,612.85

Questions?