Legal Situation
Introduction
The legal issue that I am addressing is a case that involved Taisons Foods Inc. and several consumers who sued the company after they developed health complications after consuming the company’s food products. Taisons is a private-owned company that specializes in food and beverage products and has been in existence for more than three decades. The company was founded in California State but expanded its operations to cover the sates of Los Angeles and Arizona. The legal situation happened in its new operation plant in Arizona back in 2017. The company was among the leading food chains until 2017, whereby it experienced legal issues that tainted its brand. The company gained its prominence due to its reputable and excellent customer service and provision of quality and timely food products. However, in Arizona, the company did not pick to the owner’s expectations, and the products were moving at a low rate such that some became expired while in the company’s warehouses.
So in March of 2017, two years after commencing operations in Arizona, several customers purchased food products from the company’s retail stores. After consuming the food, quite a number of customers developed health complications. Some of the consumers were rushed to hospitals complaining of stomach cramps and frequent vomiting mixed with blood. Others complained of nausea and diarrhoea. After a while, several patients complained of kidney problems. All the patients were tested in different healthcare facilities, and the results showed that they had consumed expired food. Unfortunately, three of the victims lost their lives. After thorough research, it was identified that the expired food was from Taisons Food Inc. Remaining food samples from some of the consumers showed that the food had surpassed its expiry date by two months. It was also revealed that the company’s management was aware of the expired food, and hence it was out of their negligence that they caused the suffering and unfortunate death of its consumers.
Selling of expired food to customers is a legal issue that can withstand legal proceedings. The victims who survived and the family members of those who lost their lives jointly decided to approach the company for compensation out of the court. But the company denied the claims even despite the victims having samples of the expiry food materials. Subsequently, the victims decided to sue the company for damages. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the victims approached the authorities from the health department who liaised with the company, but the company remained defiant of the claims. The claimants had samples of the expired food, and they had evidence that they had suffered harm as a result of consuming the expired food, a proof that the case was justifiable in a court of law. In the district court, the judges ruled that the company officials had the mandate to monitor the expiry dates of their products and selling of expiry food was against the right of ensuring quality health to individuals. Consequently, the court ordered the company to pay 8 million US dollars as damages to the victims.
Key Facts
The key facts of the case include Taisons selling expired food to its customers, even despite being aware of the expiry date. The sale of expiry food is a lawsuit that falls under the product liability theory, which holds that manufacturers, distributors and the sellers of food products are responsible for any harm caused to the consumers by the expired goods (Chen & Hua, 2017). What is required is the consumer to prove that they suffered any harm. Another fact is that the company was aware of the expiry date, and it did not notify its consumers. In addition, the expired food caused suffering to the consumers because some of them lost their lives and others developed health issues, including some who later developed kidney problems. Another fact is that the consumers had evidence that would withstand court proceedings. Besides, the company violated the consumer’s right to quality health. Besides, there was the fact that there was an obligation of the company to ensure that it sold health products to its consumers.
Issue
One issue that was present in the case was negligence. Negligence is a subsidiary of the law of tort, and it involves carelessness of an individual in authority that results in harm to another person. In the above case, the company was responsible for the suffering of its consumers. As a general rule, any company must keep a record on the expiry of its products, and this has to be reviewed regularly to ensure that the company does not sell expired products that may cause harm to its customers. The law of tort defines a tort as an omission or action that results in harm to a different individual, and the harm can be justifiable in a court of law (Oldham, 2018). In the case of Taisons vs its consumers, it was evident that the consumers suffered health complications to the extent that some even lost their lives.
Rule
The rule that applied in the case was the rule of negligence, which explains the failure to honor the utmost care by a person who is in authority or responsibility. Basically, one has a legal duty to honor when they can anticipate that failure to do so would result in harm. Plunkett (2018), hinted that negligence is a form in which various injuries result when people fail to take precautions into considerations. One of the elements of negligence is causation. In negligence, causation indicates that there was a particular action that resulted in suffering to the victims. If the plaintiff is unable to justify the cause, then the case is not valid before a court of law. In a court of law, one major aspect of causation that any court is likely to consider include identifying whether the victim would have suffered injuries or not had the plaintiff not perpetrated the act that caused suffering to the defendant.
Another element of negligence is damage or injury. Similarly, for a case involving negligence to be able to withstand court proceedings, the defendant must prove that they suffered harm or injuries from the actions of the plaintiff. Otherwise, there would be no legal case. In case there is a need for the approval of mental damages, the defendant must seek assistance from a psychiatrist or psychologist. For the proof of physical injuries, the victim may liaise with healthcare professionals. Amongst the elements of negligence is also the duty of care. Burrows (2018), stated that duty of care involves the obligation of the defendant not to commit any action that may result in harms to the plaintiff. In the rule of law, a duty of care is established when the law is able to realize that there is a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant that demands the defendant to act in accordance to certain standards to the plaintiff. The judge in a court of law has to determine if the defendant had the responsibility to ensure a duty of care to the plaintiff. The other element is that of breach of the duty of care. The court of law has to prove that there was a breach of duty of care by the defendant that resulted in sufferings to the plaintiff. The breach of duty arises when the defendant does not exercise the utmost care in honoring the duty.
Analysis
One key fact in the case of Taisons and her consumers was that the selling of expired food caused the suffering of the consumers, and this relates to the element of causation. In causation, there is a cause and effect relationship. There must be an action that causes suffering (Deakin & Markesinis, 2019). For instance, selling of expired food to consumers was the cause, and health complications and death were the effects. In case the food company had not sold the expired food, the consumers would not have suffered health diseases to the extent of several losing their lives. Another key fact was that some consumers suffered death while others developed health issues like kidney problems, and this relates to the element of damage. It was evident that the consumers suffered damage as a result of consuming expired food, and such damages could be proven before a court of law. The other fact was that the company had an obligation to sell healthy products to its consumers, and this can be related to the element of duty of care. Taisons had the duty of upholding the healthiness of its consumers by providing health products. In addition, there was a breach of the duty of care because the company sold expired products to its consumers, and this resulted in the suffering of the consumers.
Conclusion
Following the case of Taisons and her consumers, the court ruled that the defendant would pay monetary damages to the plaintiff amounting to 8 million US dollars. In its ruling, the court revealed that the company had gone against the product liability theory, and therefore it had to compensate its consumers. Additionally, the court found that the company had breached its duty of care to its consumers. Logically, there was a causation effect in the case because the selling of expired food led to the suffering of consumers. Theoretically, Taisons Food Inc. sold expired food materials to its consumers, and some of them developed health complications with several losing lives. Realistically, consuming expired food may interfere with the lungs, and the kidney and the involved parties may develop body problems.
References
Deakin, S., & Markesinis, B. (2019). Markesinis and Deakin’s tort law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Burrows, A. S. (2018). Contract, Tort and Restitution—A Satisfactory Division or Not?
Plunkett, J. (2018). The Duty of Care in Negligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Oldham, J. (2018). The Law of Negligence as Reported in The Times, 1785–1820. Law and History Review, 36(2), 383-419.
Chen, Y., & Hua, X. (2017). Competition, product safety, and product liability. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 33(2), 237-267.