Posted: December 11th, 2022

Food Contamination Suit

Food Contamination Suit
Also include:

(1) what is the rule of law broken?

(2) what is the court precedent or history of court cases and sentences for cases like this? and

(3) what is the ethical theory that applies?

Food Contamination Suit
(1) What is the rule of law broken?
The possible causes of action in the suit include Negligence and product liability. For the former, the service provider who is Taco Bell has a reasonable duty of care under the principles of general negligence. A restaurant should ensure that its food is safe against any unreasonable hazards (Cox, 2016). In the case study, a breach of duty occurs because the chicken sandwich has a bone. In normal circumstances, the individual consuming the sandwich cannot anticipate that it may have a bone. Now, the onus is on the plaintiff to seek compensation because of the harm caused by the bone to the body.
To prove product liability, the plaintiff has to demonstrate to the court that the food serving was defective. In the case study, the supplier of the food is different from the serving entity. Therefore, the supplier is liable. The plaintiff should demonstrate to the court that the food was dangerous and defective and it caused certain illnesses. A claim for warranty breach is also possible for the plaintiff because the product did not conform to his expectations and it did not meet the minimum quality standards.
(2) What is the court precedent or history of court cases and sentences for cases like this?
In Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court (Clark) (1992), the court held that bones are natural to the chicken meat (Vaughan & Ayers, 2016). Therefore, a consumer who consumes chicken from a restaurant has to anticipate the presence of bones. However, in the Ruvolo case study, they type of serving was a sandwich. Therefore, there was no expectation of a bone.
(3) What is the ethical theory that applies?
The most relevant ethical theory is on the duty of care by the restaurant. Taco Bell should inspect the products received from its suppliers to determine its suitability to the customers.
References
Cox, R. (2016). A climate change litigation precedent: Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 34(2), 143-163.
Vaughan, M. B., & Ayers, A. L. (2016). Customary access: sustaining local control of fishing and food on Kaua ‘i’s north shore. Food, Culture & Society, 19(3), 517-538.