• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Strict liability at work in foodborne-illness lawsuits

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Location
Michigan-Florida
Strict liability at work in foodborne-illness lawsuits Posted on February 22, 2007 by Bill Marler
By Paula Schaap from Verditsearch

Source of Article: http://www.marlerblog.com/

Bill Marler, a litigator who specializes in representing plaintiffs who were sickened by food-borne pathogens, said he is in the enviable position of not having to prove fault. But when he explains that to food growers, packagers and distributors during settlement discussions, he often has a problem getting his adversaries to understand.

"The concept of strict products liability, especially as it relates to food, is always a little bit difficult for defendants to get their heads around," Marler said. "It's not like an auto accident where both sides say the light was green. In these instances, the light is always green for me."

Once the food companies and their insurers understand the concept that they are liable if they are in the chain of distribution, no matter where in the chain the contamination occurred, the focus shirts to damages and what a jury would be likely to award, Marler said.

Marler recently settled a large group of cases on behalf of customers who purchased tomatoes contained in salads or sandwiches at Sheetz convenience stores and became ill with salmonella poisoning over the Fourth of July weekend in 2004. In the tomato cases, 429 confirmed salmonellosis cases were identified in nine eastern states, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Marler represented the majority of the plaintiffs and brought claims against Sheetz Inc., Altoona, Pa., and Coronet Foods Inc., Wheeling, W. Va., the firm that packaged the tomatoes.

People with salmonella poisoning can suffer a range of illnesses, from mild gastroenteritis to symptoms severe enough to require hospitalization. In rare cases, victims can die. However, in the case of the tomato salmonella outbreak there were no deaths.

So far, Sheetz settled almost every case with the clients Marler represents for confidential amounts, Samaratunga v. Sheetz Inc. Only one lawsuit is pending in Pennsylvania state court.

This year, Marler's firm is once again busy representing victims of food-borne illnesses after a nationwide recall of spinach that was tainted with the E.coli bacteria. Marler represents 96 claimants in 26 states.

Marler also spends time counseling his potential adversaries on how to make the food supply safer, through his nonprofit corporation, OutBreak Inc.

"I've taken close to $300 million from the food industry for my clients," Marler said, "but I don't have a burning interest to own a jet."

Marler gave an example of his approach to settlement in another set of cases involving contaminated lettuce.

"I went into mediation and all the defense attorneys were pointing fingers at each other, so I put my head down on the table," Marler said.

When the mediator asked him if he was okay, Marler said to the distributor in the lettuce case, "In a few months your insurance company is going to settle and then the rest of you are going to settle and until then you're going to keep fighting me."

Marler then stood up and announced, "But I'm in Seattle, it's a beautiful day and I'm going to the beach."
 
"The concept of strict products liability, especially as it relates to food, is always a little bit difficult for defendants to get their heads around," Marler said. "It's not like an auto accident where both sides say the light was green. In these instances, the light is always green for me."

Once the food companies and their insurers understand the concept that they are liable if they are in the chain of distribution, no matter where in the chain the contamination occurred, the focus shirts to damages and what a jury would be likely to award, Marler said.

This is the concept that had many of the individuals, groups, and insurance companies scared that would come back and bite them in the butt with M-ID on cattle-- and the fact that the big time Corporates with their cribs of vultures (lawyers) would/will be able to put up a much bigger
defense, leaving the little guy out to dry.....
 
We are liable if We are in the chain of distribution, no matter where in the chain the contamination occurred.

We are liable if We are in the chain of distribution, no matter where in the chain the contamination occurred.

We are liable if, We are in the chain of distribution, no matter where in the chain, the contamination occurred. Field or To FORK

Better have records and traceback that you can prove you did everything RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
 
ot: This is the concept that had many of the individuals, groups, and insurance companies scared that would come back and bite them in the butt with M-ID on cattle-- and the fact that the big time Corporates with their cribs of vultures (lawyers) would/will be able to put up a much bigger
defense, leaving the little guy out to dry.....


you deride canadians saying they are against cool because they aren't proud of their product and here you are afraid to stand behind yours. it figures.
 
This is the concept that had many of the individuals, groups, and insurance companies scared that would come back and bite them in the butt with M-ID on cattle-- and the fact that the big time Corporates with their cribs of vultures (lawyers) would/will be able to put up a much bigger
defense, leaving the little guy out to dry.....

See it another way also OT. They CAN implicate you with NO ID system and you'd be left holding the bag with no proof of anything.

ID could also exonerate you during an investigation.....
 
Mike said:
This is the concept that had many of the individuals, groups, and insurance companies scared that would come back and bite them in the butt with M-ID on cattle-- and the fact that the big time Corporates with their cribs of vultures (lawyers) would/will be able to put up a much bigger
defense, leaving the little guy out to dry.....

See it another way also OT. They CAN implicate you with NO ID system and you'd be left holding the bag with no proof of anything.

ID could also exonerate you during an investigation.....

Well the fear I heard expressed many times- was that with the USDA we have (best the corporate dollar can buy)- and the cribs of attorneys the Corporates have-- You know it won't be Safeway Stores or Texas Feeders or Tyson,Swift etal who get found as being the problem in the distribution chain.... So who do you think will get stuck being found as to where the liability ends up with.... :???:

Look what happened to John Munsell- and he documented it- and reported it...But the court costs ate him up...And remember the courts say USDA's decisions are above being questioned- and cannot be sued if they do something wrong....

It is something everyone should check their ranch insurance about- as many policy's don't cover such tort liability...
 
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
This is the concept that had many of the individuals, groups, and insurance companies scared that would come back and bite them in the butt with M-ID on cattle-- and the fact that the big time Corporates with their cribs of vultures (lawyers) would/will be able to put up a much bigger
defense, leaving the little guy out to dry.....

See it another way also OT. They CAN implicate you with NO ID system and you'd be left holding the bag with no proof of anything.

ID could also exonerate you during an investigation.....

Well the fear I heard expressed many times- was that with the USDA we have (best the corporate dollar can buy)- and the cribs of attorneys the Corporates have-- You know it won't be Safeway Stores or Texas Feeders or Tyson,Swift etal who get found as being the problem in the distribution chain.... So who do you think will get stuck being found as to where the liability ends up with.... :???:

Look what happened to John Munsell- and he documented it- and reported it...But the court costs ate him up...And remember the courts say USDA's decisions are above being questioned- and cannot be sued if they do something wrong....

It is something everyone should check their ranch insurance about- as many policy's don't cover such tort liability...

OT. I hear what you are saying and I agree with you totally on the USDA deal.

But read my lips.....................

WITH NO ID YOU HAVE NO RECORDS - ZERO

They could implicate anyone down the line!



With an ID system you at least have SOMETHING for proof

Think about what you are saying real hard. :wink:
 
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
See it another way also OT. They CAN implicate you with NO ID system and you'd be left holding the bag with no proof of anything.

ID could also exonerate you during an investigation.....

Well the fear I heard expressed many times- was that with the USDA we have (best the corporate dollar can buy)- and the cribs of attorneys the Corporates have-- You know it won't be Safeway Stores or Texas Feeders or Tyson,Swift etal who get found as being the problem in the distribution chain.... So who do you think will get stuck being found as to where the liability ends up with.... :???:

Look what happened to John Munsell- and he documented it- and reported it...But the court costs ate him up...And remember the courts say USDA's decisions are above being questioned- and cannot be sued if they do something wrong....

It is something everyone should check their ranch insurance about- as many policy's don't cover such tort liability...

OT. I hear what you are saying and I agree with you totally on the USDA deal.

But read my lips.....................

WITH NO ID YOU HAVE NO RECORDS - ZERO

They could implicate anyone down the line!



With an ID system you at least have SOMETHING for proof

Think about what you are saying real hard. :wink:

I have an ID-- a permanent one....That can't be removed and stuck into another animal, which could then be pawned off as belonging to me...
 
That Right, Brands are a ID and its registered in Montana. How many brands OT that you know of that are found in other states match yours? Of course if you had a picture of each brand on each calf as the scar's are like finger prints as no two scar's are the same as the are burned in. That's what ScoringAg says as the South Americans take pictures of every hot branded animal for proof of ownership.
 
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Well the fear I heard expressed many times- was that with the USDA we have (best the corporate dollar can buy)- and the cribs of attorneys the Corporates have-- You know it won't be Safeway Stores or Texas Feeders or Tyson,Swift etal who get found as being the problem in the distribution chain.... So who do you think will get stuck being found as to where the liability ends up with.... :???:


What about those ''slick'' steers that sold on RFD Friday. Could someone forget what town in Montana they came from and think they were yours? I think you may have mentioned that maybe everyone in the state is not required by law to brand :roll:

Look what happened to John Munsell- and he documented it- and reported it...But the court costs ate him up...And remember the courts say USDA's decisions are above being questioned- and cannot be sued if they do something wrong....

It is something everyone should check their ranch insurance about- as many policy's don't cover such tort liability...

OT. I hear what you are saying and I agree with you totally on the USDA deal.

But read my lips.....................

WITH NO ID YOU HAVE NO RECORDS - ZERO

They could implicate anyone down the line!



With an ID system you at least have SOMETHING for proof

Think about what you are saying real hard. :wink:

I have an ID-- a permanent one....That can't be removed and stuck into another animal, which could then be pawned off as belonging to me...
 
Your Brand is a ID and its registered in Montana. How many brands OT that you know of that are found in other states match yours?

Any Idea?????????
 
PORKER said:
Your Brand is a ID and its registered in Montana. How many brands OT that you know of that are found in other states match yours?

Any Idea?????????

Have no idea-- My cattle have an eartag ID with individual animal numbers that has my brand, my name, and my town and state on it...But since these are not proof of ownership- and since these also are not permanent and can be altered or removed-- I also have a Permanent Hot Iron Brand...

Now if you can't ID them from that- Porker-- then you have problems-- and I haven't had to put out the price of the RFID tag-and the reader--nor the cost and time involved with working with a reader (that in all the testing they did around here, didn't work half the time)...
 
I also have a Permanent Hot Iron Brand ;OT

That code is in a database or the Montana Brand code book would prove ownership ,Wouldn't it ?

So do you think if COOL comes to be ,that a Reg. brand would be proof of origin for your stock??
 
PORKER said:
So do you think if COOL comes to be ,that a Reg. brand would be proof of origin for your stock??

A MX or C^N brand would pretty well prove origin- Mexican or Canadian...Just have the rule that any live cattle being imported needs to be hot iron branded- and you have M-COOL handled...

But that would be too simple and no tag manufacturers or Data Base companies could get rich screwing the cattlemen- so we know that won't come to be :wink: :( :mad: :roll:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top