Food Products Liability | jgersen | February 11, 2016

H2O

Food Products Liability

by jgersen Show/Hide

Whether adopted by statute, regulation, or ordinance versions of the Food Code constitute so-called public law regulation of food. However, state common law has also long addressed food safety concerns as well. In fact, cases involving harms from food gave rise to modern products liability law. The cases in this section illustrate the range of common law food safety claims that are often brought under the broad rubric of food liability.  

 

EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST

Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:

MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (8/9 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (1/9 playlist item notes are private)
  1. 8 Show/Hide More Burr v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Columbia, Inc.
    Original Creator: jgersen

    Notes:
    <p>1. Causation. Whether brought in a negligence or strict liability action, the plaintiff still must show that their injury was caused by the food product. Causation is not always a trivial endeavor. Absent affirmative evidence or immediate temporal proximity, the causation element may not be satisfied and recovery may be barred.</p> <p>2. Traceability. In recent years, there has been a strong push towards what is sometimes called &#8220;traceability.&#8221; The basic idea is that it should be possible to trace a food back through the entire chain from production to consumption. The more traceability in the food system, the easier causation will be to satisfy.</p>
  2. 9 Show/Hide More Trabaudo v. Kenton Ruritan Club, Inc.
    Original Creator: jgersen
     Notes.

    1. Trabaudo is a case involving an ordinary state common law tort claim and an alleged violation of a state pure food statute. The state statutes is similar to the federal law, but provides a state private right of action.
    2. Defendants, who? Note that the defendant in the this case was a community organization that sold sausages as a fundraiser. The community organization, in turn, had purchased the raw pork from Meat Market to the make the sausages. Which defendant is in the best position to prevent injuries of this sort? The initial producer, the reseller, both, or neither? Commentary on tort law sometimes uses a concept known as the cheapest cost avoider. The idea is to impose the legal responsibility for avoiding an injury on the party with the party best situated to avoid the harm most easily. Is that idea at play in this case? Who is the cheapest-cost-avoider in this scenario?    
    3. Tort, what? The plaintiffs had several legal theories in this case. First, they argued that defendants were negligent in failing to inspect the pork for trichinae and in failing to warn them of the danger of eating raw pork and the methods available to render it safe. That is, they alleged the defendants failed to take a required precaution (inspection) and also failed to warn about the risk. Second, the plaintiffs argued that defendants breached an implied warranty of fitness and violated the state Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, by misrepresenting the pork sausage as being wholesome. Third, plaintiffs argued that assert that defendants' sale of “adulterated” food constituted a violation of the state pure food act. What exactly is the relationship between these three claims? Is it possible to violate on of these legal obligations and not the others or is the idea that breach of anyone of these obligations would by implication generate legal liability for the other claims?
Close

Playlist Information

August 24, 2017

Author Stats

jgersen

Jacob Gersen

Other Playlists by jgersen

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large