1. Mass Tort Symposium – New Orleans October 17, 2008 Case Selection/Case Resolution

2. Marler Clark, LLP PS  Since 1993 Marler Clark has represented thousands of legitimate food illness victims in every State.  Only a fraction of the victims who contact our office end up being represented.  Who do we turn away?

3. “Christening” the Carpet “I opened a box of Tyson Buffalo wings and saw an unusually shaped piece of chicken and I picked it up. When I saw that the ‘piece’ had a beak, I got sick to my stomach. My lunch and diet coke came up and I managed to christen my carpet, bedding and clothing. I want them to at least pay for cleaning my carpet etc.”

4. Lending a Helping Hand “My husband recently opened a bottle of salsa and smelled an unusual odor but chose to eat it regardless, thinking that it was just his nose. He found what appeared to be a rather large piece of animal or human flesh. He became very nauseated and I feel the manufacturer should be held responsible.

5. The Chaff Just like health departments we need to quickly and reliably recognize unsupportable claims How Do We Do It?

6. Basic Tools of the Trade  Symptoms  Incubation  Duration  Food History  Medical Attention  Suspected source  Others Ill Health Department Involvement

7. Matching Symptoms with Specific Characteristics of Pathogens  E. coli O157:H7  Hepatitis A  Salmonella  Shigella  Campylobacter  Vibrio

8. Matching Incubation Periods Incubation Periods Of Common Pathogens PATHOGENINCUBATION PERIOD Staphylococcus aureus 1 to 8 hours, typically 2 to 4 hours. Campylobacter 2 to 7 days, typically 3 to 5 days. E. coli O157:H7 1 to 10 days, typically 2 to 5 days. Salmonella 6 to 72 hours, typically 18-36 hours. Shigella 12 hours to 7 days, typically 1-3 days. Hepatitis A15 to 50 days, typically 25-30 days. Listeria 3 to 70 days, typically 21 days. Norovirus24 to 72 hours, typically 36 hours.

9. Epidemiologic Assessment  Time  Place  Person association  Part of a recognized outbreak?

10. Medical Attention  Health care provider  Emergency Room  Hospitalization

11. Health Department Involvement

12. FOIA/Public Records Request

13. Communicable Disease Investigation  Reportable Disease Case Report Form  Enteric/viral laboratory testing results –Human specimens –Environmental specimens

14. Molecular Testing Results  PFGE  PulseNet

15. Traceback Records POS A POS B POS C POS D FIRM A FIRM B FIRM C FIRM D FIRM E FIRM G FIRM H FIRM F FIRM I FIRM J FIRM K FIRM L FIRM M FIRM N FIRM O GROWER A GROWER B GROWER B GROWER D GROWER C Firm Name Firms A,C,D,G, H,I,L,M,N Growers A&C Firms B,E,F,J,K Firm O, Grower D Grower B No. of outbreaks Assoc. with firm/ Total no. of outbreaks 1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4

16. Prior Health Department Inspections  Improper Cooking Procedures  Improper Refrigeration  Improper Storage and Cooking Procedures  Improper Sanitation

17. Improper Cooking Procedures Hamburger buns are toasted on the grill immediately adjacent to the cooking patties, and it is conceivable that, early in the cooking process, prior to pasteurization, meat juices and blood containing active pathogens might possibly splash onto a nearby bun.  A young girl suffered HUS after eating a hamburger from a midsized southern California fast-food chain.  Her illness was not culture-confirmed.  No food on site tested positive for E. coli O157:H7.  Review of health inspections revealed flaws in cooking methods.

18. Improper Refrigeration  A Chinese buffet-restaurant in Ohio was the suspected source of an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak.  No contaminated leftover food was found.  A number of ill patrons were children. Jell-O was suspected as the vehicle of transmission.  Health Department report noted “raw meat stored above the Jell-O in the refrigerator.” The likely source of E. coli O157:H7 in the Jell-O was from raw meat juices dripping on the Jell-O while it was solidifying in the refrigerator.

19. Improper Storage and Cooking  Banquet-goers in tested positive for Salmonella.  Leftover food items had been discarded or tested negative.  Restaurant had “pooled” dozens, if not hundreds, of raw eggs in a single bucket for storage overnight, then used them as a “wash” on a specialty dessert that was not cooked thoroughly.

21. Civil Litigation – A Tort – How it Really Works  Strict liability  It is their fault – Period!  Negligence  Did they act reasonably?  Punitive damages  Did they act with conscious disregard of a known safety risk?

22. Strict Liability for Food – a Bit(e) of History “… “… a manufacturer of a food product under modern conditions impliedly warrants his goods… and that warranty is available to all who may be damaged by reason of its use in the legitimate channels of trade…” Mazetti v. Armour & Co., 75 Wash. 622 (1913)

23. Who is a Manufacturer? A “manufacturer” is defined as a “product seller who designs, produces, makes, fabricates, constructs, or remanufactures the relevant product or component part of a product before its sale to a user or consumer….” RCW 7.72.010(2); see also Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co., 120 Wn.2d 246 (1992)

24. The Legal Standard: Strict Liability STRICT LIABILITY IS LIABILITY WITHOUT REGARD TO FAULT.  The focus is on the product; not the conduct  They are liable if:  The product was unsafe  The product caused the injury

25. It’s called STRICT Liability for a Reason  The only defense is prevention  Wishful thinking does not help  If they manufacture a product that causes someone to be sick they are going to pay IF they get caught

26. Why Strict Liability?  Puts pressure on those (manufacturers) that most likely could correct the problem in the first place  Puts the cost of settlements and verdicts directly onto those (manufacturers) that profit from the product  Creates incentive not to let it happen again

27. The Legal Arsenal  Interrogatories  Requests for production  Requests for inspection  Request for admission  Third-party subpoenas  Depositions  Motions to compel

28. Litigation At Work – A Bit(e) of History Jack in the Box - 1993 Odwalla - 1996

32. What Will a Jury Think? A Jury=12 Consumers

33. Questions?