According to a news source, nine families whose babies developed kidney problems allegedly as a result of drinking milk tainted with melamine have filed individual lawsuits against the Sanlu Group, one of China’s largest milk companies. Each child developed kidney stones, and six reportedly remain hospitalized. The families are seeking the equivalent of US$2,000 for each child as compensation. Even though the families live in different provinces, the lawsuits were all filed in the northern city of Shijiazhuang, where the company is based. No judge has yet agreed to hear any of the milk cases in court, and a number of lawyers have apparently been pressured by government officials not to represent families seeking damages. See The New York Times, October 31, 2008.
Category Archives Issue 281
A California appeals court has determined that a misreading of prior case law led a trial court judge to erroneously overturn a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged that she was made ill from exposure to campylobacter at defendant’s restaurant. Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd., No. G037818 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3, decided October 27, 2008). So ruling, the court reinstated $725,000 in economic damages and $2.5 million in noneconomic damages and allowed the plaintiff to recover her costs on appeal. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, after determining, under a heightened causation standard, that reasonable inferences alone cannot prove a food poisoning case. The appeals court exhaustively analyzes the court’s reasoning in Minder v. Cielito Lindo Restaurant, 67 Cal.App.3d 1003 (1977), and shows how the court in that case misread prior case law “to preclude the use…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has scheduled a workshop for December 12, 2008, to discuss possible regulatory language that would apply to foods or crops with added nutrients that exceed levels considered safe under Proposition 65. According to OEHHA’s notice, “this set of regulations, if adopted, will only apply to chemicals that are already on the Proposition 65 list, or that are added to the list in the future. The exposure level established in these potential regulations for a listed chemical would not limit the amount of the chemical that can be added to any particular product and would not restrict the sale or availability of any food product or supplement. Instead, these levels could be used by businesses subject to the [Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement] Act to determine when a warning is required for an exposure to the listed chemicals in question in a food…
12
