Infamous Lawsuit Liability

Regs & Legs

Infamous Lawsuit Liability

By Neal D. Fortin 
Contributing Editor 

Anyonecan sue anyone over anything. Winning, however, is a different matter. By design, the American legal system weeds out frivolous lawsuits.Even if a lawsuit escapes earlier roadblocks, the judge holds the power toreduce an unwarranted jury award. For instance, in the McDonalds hot coffeecase, the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge reduced it to$480,000, and McDonalds ultimately settled for a lesser, undisclosed amount.A decade later, this case has become urban legend and has shaped the publicsperception of tort law. Urban legends about frivolous lawsuits winning millionsare unfortunate, reducing our faith in the legal system, and fostering a beliefthat nothing a company does is of any consequence in preventing or winning suchlawsuits.

A little knowledge and diligence go a long way in lawsuit prevention. These legal actions are called torts.Here are some essential facts about tort liability:

Strict liability:

A person injured or made ill by a food containing adangerous object or deleterious substance may recover damages from themanufacturer under strict liability if the food was unreasonablydangerous. A jury decides what is unreasonable, but the bottom line is that the courtwill look at similar products and determine whether the food met applicablestandards. Liability increases the further a food falls below industry norms,internal standards and regulatory requirements. Conversely, the degree to which a food meets or exceeds comparable productsand standards, the stronger the defense.

Breach of implied warrant:

A person injured or made ill may recover damages from manufacturers orsellers of the product for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Proof that the foodwas wholesome or fit for consumption at least when it left your control is a key defense. This proofmight include written procedures to ensure wholesomeness and solidrecord-keeping that documents that fact.

Negligence:

This requires proof of five elementsduty of care for the defendant; breach of that duty;cause-in-fact of injury; within the scope of liability; and damages. Defenses to negligence includethose listed for strict liability. An additional defense is proof that a firm met its duty of care in producing,marketing or selling the implicated food. These claims are not as common as strict liability and warrantybecause of the higher burden of proof to demonstrate that a firm failed to exercise reasonable care.

Misrepresentation or nondisclosure:

With food products, misrepresentation or nondisclosuregenerally arise from the premise that the manufacturer concealed material information or misrepresented informationto the consumer. This applies when they cause one of the three torts described above. For example,failure to disclose the presence of peanuts in a food might create an action in strict liability because thefood is unreasonably dangerous to people with peanut allergies. The law puts a heavy burden onfood manufacturers. Nonetheless, armed with a little knowledge, avoiding legal-liability landmines is relativelystraightforward, even if not always easy.

Neal D. Fortin is an attorney concentrating in Food and Drug Law. He is also a professor infood and drug law at Michigan State University. For more information, visit his websites:www.fortinlaw.com or www.foodlaw.org.