Food Poisoning Verdict Reinstated in California
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 of reasonable inferences to show causation in food poisoning cases.” According to the court, California law has always allowed reasonable inferences in these cases to provide the necessary proof of causation. In this case, plaintiff’s expert “expressly” made the link between campylobacter, the food poisoning experienced by the plaintiff, and the unsanitary conditions found at the restaurant. The court also rejected defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff was required, as a matter of law, to exclude all possibilities of food poisoning other than the meal she had at the restaurant.
