Don't Mess with Texas....chili!
Posted on 08/07/2004 8:08:23 PM PDT by nuconvert
Texas Grocer to Pay $2.85 Million to Six Made Ill by Tainted Chili
The Associated Press
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - A Fort Worth discount grocer has agreed to pay $2.85 million to settle a lawsuit filed by six people who were hospitalized for botulism after eating the store's tainted chili. The plaintiffs were among eight people who ate the chili at a church concert in 2001 and became sick enough to be hospitalized.
A lawsuit against the Fort Worth-based chili distributor, Ben E. Keith, is pending. Town Talk Foods, meanwhile, is suing Keith and the chili manufacturer, First Original Texas Chili Co., to recoup money it paid in the settlement and other damages.
"Town Talk Foods recognized its own liability as a seller of the food and willingly paid its fair share," Carl Mallory, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs in the settlement, said in Saturday's editions of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The plaintiffs are members of three families from Sanger.
The chili was first sold to a Dallas restaurant, which returned it to the distributor after noticing a bad odor, Mallory said. Instead of the destroying the chili, Keith resold it to Town Talk Foods, Mallory said.
Attorneys representing Keith argue that Town Talk Foods had an obligation to destroy any product that was unfit for consumption.
Tom Potthoff, owner of Town Talk Foods, said his lawyers discovered the chili's chain of ownership after a prolonged court battle to obtain investigatory records from the Texas Department of Health.
"We finally learned the truth of this outbreak," Potthoff said. "These customers of mine who have been so loyal have had their faith in us justified. That said, we sold the product. And I did feel we needed to do something for those persons who became ill."
Why was the original law suit against an INNOCENT party?
LAWYER POS scumbags & activist judges who want nothing more than to enrich themselves and destroy the capitalist form of our society!
So now, thanks to the lawyers, the innocent party must sue the guilty parties so he can recover what he was forced to pay in the unjust judgement and pay the LAWYERS again!
Who gets the money? NOT the people who got sick (who really should only get their medical and other expense paid for plus SENSIBLE compensation for their pain/discomfort).
The lawyers? $5.50/hour is more than what they deserve.
But I would allow them NO MORE than maybe 10% of the take.
On the other hand --- let's simply Tar & Feather the entire lot of them!
Folks,
If you have a plan of selling food products - you may want to consider filing as a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation). Protect the kids and house.
Oh, Oh! I just finished eating a bowl of chili, and my stomach is beginning to bloat. Can someone give me the name of the lawyer who won the lawsuit for millions of dollars? I could use it for retirement, since my portfolio is lean and mean.
"On the other hand --- let's simply Tar & Feather the entire lot of them!"
Does this inclue John Edwards? Yeh!!
The word should have been "include" not inclue.
"Does botulism cause nausia?"
Yup. Foodborne botulism causes nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea. The body wants to get rid of that nasty stuff.
Tort reform, anyone?
You ought to send that pic to Ms Heinz
I wonder if those people will ever eat chili again?
"The chili was first sold to a Dallas restaurant, which returned it to the distributor after noticing a bad odor, Mallory said. Instead of the destroying the chili, Keith resold it to Town Talk Foods, Mallory said. "
That is unbelievable.
Now, you can get some really good chili (no beans) from Rudolph's Meat Market in Deep Ellum in Dallas. It's sold frozen.
There's your first clue...
I think a court and/or a jury would hold that a consumer has a reasonable expectation that foods bought from a retailer can be considered safe, whether or not it smelled "funny". In my lifetime, I have lived in some fairly primitive conditions, and have learned the difference between the odors of foods that are merely "ripe" and foods that are fouled to the point they shouldn't be eaten (for instance, the salsa I was served at Carrow's one time that tasted and smelled more like a motor fuel than a food - if it doesn't taste like food, don't eat it).
I'd give a prepared food containing mixed ingredients, especially if prepackaged and containing meat and / or tomatoes, extra scrutiny, and would not likely eat a chili that smelled ripe or had a tangy aftertaste.
Some folks might not know better though, and they can reasonably expect safety and the responsibility for that flows up the supply line. Seems to me, the retailer would be the logical first place to make a claim. That Town Talk is bucking up and shouldering their portion of it is to their credit. Knowing nothing other than what has been reported in the story, I get the impression they run a stand-up outfit.
Nah. Not based on what's reported here. Botulism poisoning is very painful, and if not deadly can cause lasting damage. Here we have six individuals collecting what seems like reasonable amounts for the retailer's contribution to their suffering (after the attorneys and the governments grab their part). It's not like the runs you get from eating poorly handled chicken from the deli, it's a near death experience. If I got it I'd want to be able to sue the pants off of whoever was responsible.
Funny; I just automatically thought "cans". Didn't occur to me that it was in some kind of bulk deli form that the store should have been able to catch a whiff of.
I just assumed the restaurant had opened a large, 'food service' size can or two, smelled it, and sent all their cans back.
One way, I can see the store having liability; the other way, I can't...unless the cans were obviously damaged and leaking.
Fortunate that it was 'only' eight, and no deaths, involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.